|
 |
| | | Author: | Admin_Russell  | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 00:21 | | Subject: | Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 9829 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 00:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 898 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As a database engineer, this is the worst idea ever. To dumb down your core database
rather than solving it on the usage side.
As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 01:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 287 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | As a database engineer, this is the worst idea ever. To dumb down your core database
rather than solving it on the usage side.
As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
|
At our last catalog administrators meeting, I specifically brought up these points.
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 01:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 330 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | As a database engineer, this is the worst idea ever. To dumb down your core database
rather than solving it on the usage side.
As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
|
That is a good proposal for the future, but that only works for things that are
optional. For many variants (e.g., the major functional variants) they aren't
optional - the catalog forces these as part of maintaining a good marketplace.
For the variants listed on this page, they really aren't that important,
and I would rather BrickLink members simply forget about them, in the same way
that thousands of other variants are not even known by people.
For the middle ground, I think a checkbox system would work well, and we could
develop it further for the inventory system too, to record what people find in
sealed sets.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | dutchsnake5 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | For the variants listed on this page, they really aren't that important,
and I would rather BrickLink members simply forget about them, in the same way
that thousands of other variants are not even known by people.
|
This is such a shortsighted statement regarding the preservation of Lego and
its history. I would like to gently remind you that BrickLink exists as it does
now thanks to the efforts of countless Lego fans who tirelessly documented the
piece variants in sets that have only become rarer today. Merging entries and
thereby erasing them removes that history, and disrespects the work that said
fans put into this website, and only makes it harder for fans of Lego to ensure
that they are getting what they paid for. I can’t believe an admin on this website
would prefer we forget that history in favor of a handful of sellers who complained.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dutchsnake5 writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | For the variants listed on this page, they really aren't that important,
and I would rather BrickLink members simply forget about them, in the same way
that thousands of other variants are not even known by people.
|
This is such a shortsighted statement regarding the preservation of Lego and
its history. I would like to gently remind you that BrickLink exists as it does
now thanks to the efforts of countless Lego fans who tirelessly documented the
piece variants in sets that have only become rarer today. Merging entries and
thereby erasing them removes that history, and disrespects the work that said
fans put into this website, and only makes it harder for fans of Lego to ensure
that they are getting what they paid for. I can’t believe an admin on this website
would prefer we forget that history in favor of a handful of sellers who complained.
|
+1
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | RuiBraga | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 09:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dutchsnake5 writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | For the variants listed on this page, they really aren't that important,
and I would rather BrickLink members simply forget about them, in the same way
that thousands of other variants are not even known by people.
|
This is such a shortsighted statement regarding the preservation of Lego and
its history. I would like to gently remind you that BrickLink exists as it does
now thanks to the efforts of countless Lego fans who tirelessly documented the
piece variants in sets that have only become rarer today. Merging entries and
thereby erasing them removes that history, and disrespects the work that said
fans put into this website, and only makes it harder for fans of Lego to ensure
that they are getting what they paid for. I can’t believe an admin on this website
would prefer we forget that history in favor of a handful of sellers who complained.
|
That last statement was right in the spot!
I'm a collector and I'm very worried about the merge.
One thing is good out of this, maybe I can now lose my "sickness" of
Lego, of having the perfect copy of a Lego set from the past and ultimately sell
my collection.
If you favour sellers you will lose buyers...
Very bad decision, in my pov, but then again it's business and I don't
have all the data to know that "this is the way"😅.
Cheers!
My 2cents.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | RedSun | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 22:54 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| "For the variants listed on this page, they really aren't that important,
and I would rather BrickLink members simply forget about them, in the same way
that thousands of other variants are not even known by people."
Why should we forget about them simply because you don't deem it to be important?
What and extremely short sighted and selfish thing to say.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Dendreas | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 06:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | That is a good proposal for the future, but that only works for things that are
optional. For many variants (e.g., the major functional variants) they aren't
optional - the catalog forces these as part of maintaining a good marketplace.
For the variants listed on this page, they really aren't that important,
and I would rather BrickLink members simply forget about them, in the same way
that thousands of other variants are not even known by people.
For the middle ground, I think a checkbox system would work well, and we could
develop it further for the inventory system too, to record what people find in
sealed sets.
|
The catalog function of bricklink is its foundation. Simply because you can't
find this information anywhere else! If you start gnawing at the foundations,
even the biggest brick wall will crumble eventually. the first step taken was
the headlight merger, you see that the it now is already easier to take a far
greater step. What wil be the next?
Please let the Bricklink wall stand.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 06:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | The catalog function of bricklink is its foundation. Simply because you can't
find this information anywhere else! If you start gnawing at the foundations,
even the biggest brick wall will crumble eventually. the first step taken was
the headlight merger,
|
The market seems to have survived the headlight merger, with multiple millions
of them sold in the past six months.
you see that the it now is already easier to take a far
| | greater step. What wil be the next?
Please let the Bricklink wall stand.
|
As to what will be next, it is covered in the last few lines of the first post
... "Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other entries later.
However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic variants.
"
So, no functional variants will be merged, and neither will any important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| |
The market seems to have survived the headlight merger, with multiple millions
of them sold in the past six months.
|
This made me chuckle. The Great Headlight Merger, a potential extinction-level
event for the marketplace.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | The catalog function of bricklink is its foundation. Simply because you can't
find this information anywhere else! If you start gnawing at the foundations,
even the biggest brick wall will crumble eventually. the first step taken was
the headlight merger,
|
The market seems to have survived the headlight merger, with multiple millions
of them sold in the past six months.
you see that the it now is already easier to take a far
| | greater step. What wil be the next?
Please let the Bricklink wall stand.
|
As to what will be next, it is covered in the last few lines of the first post
... "Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other entries later.
However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic variants.
"
So, no functional variants will be merged, and neither will any important cosmetic
variants.
|
I was looking for slotted headlight bricks the other day to complete an older
set 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | So, no functional variants will be merged, and neither will any important cosmetic
variants.
|
I was looking for slotted headlight bricks the other day to complete an older
set
|
It never existed; that was just another molding error, a different production.
It was never a different part.
AFAIK, of course, and:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450426
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | minithings4life | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 04:57 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 142 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I totally agree with hpoort. The database needs to be kept as is, and changes
made to the interface so buyers and sellers who do not care so much for some
variants have a way of filtering their searches and auto-buys.
Removing variants will eventually lead to sellers not bothering to describe the
variant in their product descriptions and buyers who are looking for a specific
variant will start to look at other marketplaces.
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | As a database engineer, this is the worst idea ever. To dumb down your core database
rather than solving it on the usage side.
As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | BaldriksBricks | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 20:16 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | BaldriksBricks | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 20:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minithings4life writes:
| | I totally agree with hpoort. The database needs to be kept as is, and changes
made to the interface so buyers and sellers who do not care so much for some
variants have a way of filtering their searches and auto-buys.
Removing variants will eventually lead to sellers not bothering to describe the
variant in their product descriptions and buyers who are looking for a specific
variant will start to look at other marketplaces.
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | As a database engineer, this is the worst idea ever. To dumb down your core database
rather than solving it on the usage side.
As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
|
|
I sell on another platform and I have a check box that I can select to not differentiate
mold variants. This could be a valid way of separating the stores that do or
dont want to acknowledge the variants. The store will then be able to serve the
customer in such a way.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Pluribus7158 | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minithings4life writes:
| | I totally agree with hpoort. The database needs to be kept as is, and changes
made to the interface so buyers and sellers who do not care so much for some
variants have a way of filtering their searches and auto-buys.
Removing variants will eventually lead to sellers not bothering to describe the
variant in their product descriptions and buyers who are looking for a specific
variant will start to look at other marketplaces.
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | As a database engineer, this is the worst idea ever. To dumb down your core database
rather than solving it on the usage side.
As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
|
|
+1
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 11:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 156 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
|
One of the problem as of right now is that in 30/50/70% of the cases (depending
the lot), the variants sold are NOT what they say, it's just an Inventory
error/typo.
Take this lot randomly found:
https://store.bricklink.com/Coinms66?sID=3078061&itemID=334785050
I could bet a paycheck those aren't actual 3068a.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 12:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Totally agree, but to some (like me) the variants do matter.(especially if you
want a specific variant from a certain year)
However some variants need to go, eg. parts that have a sprue mark. But I think
the hinge parts with different numbers of teeth need to stay. (Personally I sort
and determine variates for my store, because I believe it matters.)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | leggodtshop | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:11 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 153 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
|
One of the problem as of right now is that in 30/50/70% of the cases (depending
the lot), the variants sold are NOT what they say, it's just an Inventory
error/typo.
Take this lot randomly found:
https://store.bricklink.com/Coinms66?sID=3078061&itemID=334785050
I could bet a paycheck those aren't actual 3068a.
|
You could be right indeed. New 3068a for just $0.07 each? Hard to believe. Really
new 3068a would be much more expensive  .
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Macaronis | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 19:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | As a database engineer, this is the worst idea ever. To dumb down your core database
rather than solving it on the usage side.
As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
|
AMEN...
W
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | JosephMarinier | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | As a database engineer, this is the worst idea ever. To dumb down your core database
rather than solving it on the usage side.
As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
|
Same intuition here, and your suggestion sounds good to me.
Alternatively, if it has to be as simple as possible, it could be all or nothing:
through the interface, the seller could have the ability to sell variant "a",
"b" or "I don't know", and the buyer could have the ability
to search for variant "a", "b", or "I don't care".
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 00:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 428 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I see in the list that there are some space torsos so does that mean
And
Would be merged? Or am I misunderstanding. The old version of this torso is quite
difficult to get in good condition so it could get very difficult to find if
a buyer is looking for a true “classic” version of this torso as classic space
fans are “picky” (not in a bad way just didn’t know what other word to use)
about variants and similar
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 10:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 405 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I see in the list that there are some space torsos so does that mean
And
Would be merged?
|
Yes, unless it could otherwise be distinguished by the print alone.
| | Or am I misunderstanding. The old version of this torso is quite
difficult to get in good condition so it could get very difficult to find if
a buyer is looking for a true “classic” version of this torso as classic space
fans are “picky” (not in a bad way just didn’t know what other word to use)
about variants and similar
|
Point taken. A few other points, however:
1. You can still list whatever variant you wish using the notes field.
2. The catalog will still distinguish PRINTED variants of these same parts.
3. Because this variant involved minifigure inventories, it opens the door to
an unsustainable situation where every mold variant of every part on a minifigure
is recognized. To properly handle these in the BrickLink system, we would need
to add thousands (literally) of permutations of minifigures which are essentially
the same thing.
Take a look at this fan site for an excellent torso image:
https://62bricks.blog/2017/04/09/minifig-torso-types/
There are actually three types of torsos based on mold alone. Are we going to
then go through and try to figure out which minifigures had which mold? And then,
which sets had which minifigures? Remember that there were also different kinds
of heads, different helmets and different hands.
What we're doing with this is drawing the line with minifigure parts. If
it doesn't matter enough to make different versions of the minifigure for
each variant, we shouldn't distinguish the parts in the catalog.
4. Another point that is often overlooked is the situation the catalog and marketplace
finds itself in right at this moment. The "early" entry for these torsos
(which is the one you are saying is more highly sought after) is actually undetermined,
and you are not guaranteed to get the early type. ANY type of the torso can be
sold under the original umbrella entry.
To make it easier for the buyer and seller of early minifigure parts, we would
need to add a specific entry just for the early parts, and the main entry would
encompass "everything else, including the early parts". But that is not
what we currently have on BrickLink.
Add to that the uncertainty buyers have of getting the correct part when they
purchase. Personally I would not be sure it was the correct variant unless the
seller expressly mentioned it in the notes. So then we are back to using the
notes anyway.
By the way, for you early minifigure enthusiasts, there is an upside for you.
We will finally be able to completely reflect the solid stud head in the inventory
system. Solid stud vs hollow stud will still be a thing, and stronger than ever.
So we will distinguish the stud type for the earliest minifigures.
This effectively means that the following list of minifigure heads will finally
have a place in the inventory system:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=3626a*&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 11:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 146 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | To make it easier for the buyer and seller of early minifigure parts, we would
need to add a specific entry just for the early parts, and the main entry would
encompass "everything else, including the early parts".
|
Brilliant, wow what a relieeeeeeeeeeefffffff!
Thanks BrickLink Team.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | BrickCompulsion | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 11:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 135 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| If there is a new and old variant of a minifigure torso with a massive price
difference both listed under the same part number, surely this will have a detrimental
affect on the price guide ?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 11:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 119 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BrickCompulsion writes:
| | If there is a new and old variant of a minifigure torso with a massive price
difference both listed under the same part number, surely this will have a detrimental
affect on the price guide ?
|
1) The thing is you can sell separately the "a" version (say) at "expensive"
price but the normal version (mixed with a,b or c) will be a different and MAIN
listing, at "normal" price.
2) As of right now, some Shops sells the same exact Tiles for $0.007 and some
for $7, this won't change much
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 106 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, BrickCompulsion writes:
| | If there is a new and old variant of a minifigure torso with a massive price
difference both listed under the same part number, surely this will have a detrimental
affect on the price guide ?
|
1) The thing is you can sell separately the "a" version (say) at "expensive"
price but the normal version (mixed with a,b or c) will be a different and MAIN
listing, at "normal" price.
2) As of right now, some Shops sells the same exact Tiles for $0.007 and some
for $7, this won't change much
|
But it would still affect the price guide to a point. For example if I sold a
brand new version of the current torso for $1 since it’s common but the rarer
version if sold would sell for say $25 so if they are combined then both would
always be in the guide and mixing it up. I can understand for most of the items
on the list but for an item like this that has been split for a long time and
has a different mold, feel, (thought I read somewhere the printing process was
even slightly different) It just feels wrong
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, BrickCompulsion writes:
| | If there is a new and old variant of a minifigure torso with a massive price
difference both listed under the same part number, surely this will have a detrimental
affect on the price guide ?
|
1) The thing is you can sell separately the "a" version (say) at "expensive"
price but the normal version (mixed with a,b or c) will be a different and MAIN
listing, at "normal" price.
2) As of right now, some Shops sells the same exact Tiles for $0.007 and some
for $7, this won't change much
|
But it would still affect the price guide to a point. For example if I sold a
brand new version of the current torso for $1 since it’s common but the rarer
version if sold would sell for say $25 so if they are combined then both would
always be in the guide and mixing it up. I can understand for most of the items
on the list but for an item like this that has been split for a long time and
has a different mold, feel, (thought I read somewhere the printing process was
even slightly different) It just feels wrong
|
Plus as admin Russell mention the connection is quite difference and connecting
it to a torso can be quite noticeable and even the colour at that point (red
from 30-40 years ago is quite different then the red from now)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, BrickCompulsion writes:
| | If there is a new and old variant of a minifigure torso with a massive price
difference both listed under the same part number, surely this will have a detrimental
affect on the price guide ?
|
1) The thing is you can sell separately the "a" version (say) at "expensive"
price but the normal version (mixed with a,b or c) will be a different and MAIN
listing, at "normal" price.
2) As of right now, some Shops sells the same exact Tiles for $0.007 and some
for $7, this won't change much
|
But it would still affect the price guide to a point. For example if I sold a
brand new version of the current torso for $1 since it’s common but the rarer
version if sold would sell for say $25 so if they are combined then both would
always be in the guide and mixing it up.
|
1) Either you don't care and will sell whatever version you have, for example
based on the Average price -20%, say at $0.80
2) Either you care, and will sell your ultra rare one at $25 as the specific
version.
That won't change the price guide at all.
And still, a famous shop in Portugal will sell the normal one at $10, but that's
another story (hi Paulo!) 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 12:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Totally agree!!! This will make things especially hard when parting out old sets.
You will have to look at each items listing, looking for sellers selling the
part then read the description to find the price.
A simple part out on a 300 part set could take days!!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 14:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitolegos writes:
| | Totally agree!!! This will make things especially hard when parting out old sets.
You will have to look at each items listing, looking for sellers selling the
part then read the description to find the price.
A simple part out on a 300 part set could take days!!
|
Why would you need to do that? You could just part out as now, accepting the
inventory is correct.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 14:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Saitolegos writes:
| | Totally agree!!! This will make things especially hard when parting out old sets.
You will have to look at each items listing, looking for sellers selling the
part then read the description to find the price.
A simple part out on a 300 part set could take days!!
|
Why would you need to do that? You could just part out as now, accepting the
inventory is correct.
|
Apart a few times I did verify an Inventory (as a "Inventory verifyer",
I never ever check the parts of a BrickLink Inventory for a part-out session
(yay!).
From time to time (on recent inventories) you've got a blattant mistake,
then I just correct the BrickStore list manually.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 14:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Personally when I do part outs i do it to sell. And if the variants are the same
I will have to check the prices myself, and I don’t have time for that.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 14:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I don’t know what you do, but I like to have low prices, which promotes competition,
keeping prices from rising uncontrollably.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 14:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitolegos writes:
| | I don’t know what you do, but I like to have low prices, which promotes competition,
keeping prices from rising uncontrollably.
|
When parting out a set, whether it is new or used, it is not worth looking at
the price of every part. It is only worth looking at the more valuable parts
which can easily be spotted during the part out. Why research something costing
an average if a couple of cents. If the average is 5c, just enter 3c or 2c if
you want to be cheap or 8c if you want to be expensive or leave it as the average
and skip to the higher priced parts where a little thinking makes a difference.
Even then, whatever a store the size of yours (or mine) does, it is going to
have zero long term impact on the market. If you price too low and it is a good
deal after shipping costs are taken into account, it will be snapped up and soon
re-priced.
Also the opposite is just as likely happen on slower moving parts, where prices
have been decreasing uncontrollably on some parts in some stores. You go low,
someone else goes lower, so you go lower and they go lower. But they don't
sell as you have so little inventory to make an order worthwhile. Eventually
they hit rock bottom and someone buys all your cheap parts and it impacts the
price guide a tiny bit, so the big stores tend to price higher than average as
the low priced stores are giving stuff away.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WhiteHorseMatt | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 15:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitolegos writes:
| | I don’t know what you do, but I like to have low prices, which promotes competition,
keeping prices from rising uncontrollably.
|
I would argue rather that pricing low drives prices inexorably downwards.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 16:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| True, but I’m talking me going 1c lower MAX than the competitor. Also your theory
is incorrect for more expensive items.
Eg. the original Boba Fett head. If people keep pricing by average then the price
will go up, and up, and up. Pricing lower than the competition is not only good
for business, but it keeps the price steady. Compared to just the average which
will slowly go up over time.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 16:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitolegos writes:
| | True, but I’m talking me going 1c lower MAX than the competitor. Also your theory
is incorrect for more expensive items.
|
You do all that work to undercut by 1c?
What is stopping your items from selling is not the price, it is the quantity
of lots. The 1c saving is nothing compared to the handling fees. You'd have
to undercut by a lot more to make orders worthwhile.
This disclaimer probably doesn't help either ... Minifigure torsos may/may
not have cracks on arms, torso, unless otherwise noted.
Spend your time checking for cracks on valuable parts instead of taking the time
to undercut others by 1c.
| | Eg. the original Boba Fett head. If people keep pricing by average then the price
will go up, and up, and up. Pricing lower than the competition is not only good
for business, but it keeps the price steady. Compared to just the average which
will slowly go up over time.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 17:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Sorry that you think other wise, but I do check the my torsos for cracks, and
I think it’s a good thing to offer the lowest prices possible. (Why you might
ask, because if I were the buyer then I would want low prices if I were making
a big order.)
Once I order from a big store, (that prices by average) and before I had reached
30 lots it was over 100 dollars!
Contrast that to a smaller store that is more competitive in the prices. I was
over 85 lots, and it was less than 40 bucks!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 18:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitolegos writes:
| | If people keep pricing by average then the price
will go up, and up, and up. Pricing lower than the competition is not only good
for business, but it keeps the price steady. Compared to just the average which
will slowly go up over time.
|
As most all of the long(er)time sellers can attest, historically, prices of parts
have gone down and down. There are precious few parts where prices have stayed
steady or have gone up. This last phenomenon mostly happens for parts unique
to popular builds, popular MOCs, parts no longer in production etc.
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 18:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, Saitolegos writes:
| | If people keep pricing by average then the price
will go up, and up, and up. Pricing lower than the competition is not only good
for business, but it keeps the price steady. Compared to just the average which
will slowly go up over time.
|
As most all of the long(er)time sellers can attest, historically, prices of parts
have gone down and down. There are precious few parts where prices have stayed
steady or have gone up. This last phenomenon mostly happens for parts unique
to popular builds, popular MOCs, parts no longer in production etc.
Niek.
|
(plus certain themed minifigures and their parts)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | rylie_aitch | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 18:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 108 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I see in the list that there are some space torsos so does that mean
And
Would be merged?
|
Yes, unless it could otherwise be distinguished by the print alone.
|
It can be distinguished by the print alone. The factory in China that LEGO contracted
to make those first "Reissue" figures (Broadway Precision Technology
Ltd.) did not put any printing on the neck. The emblem printing is also brighter
and with much more consistent alignment (lots of technological development in
printing tech since the 80s!). I have been looking for a copy of 973p90new2c03
for a while now, but people keep listing their older versions incorrectly :/
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 23:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 98 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Yes - that's precisely the point folks are trying to make. Different eras
of figures have different torsos, and that's important to a lot of collectors.
Almost every buyer who cares enough to even go online to buy classic space minifigure
torsos is looking for a particular type: they don't want to pay $5 for a
vintage torso with no prongs, only to receive the latest reissue from 2019, where
one can get the entire minifigure brand new for $3.
If you must, merge the no-prong and short-prong class space torsos - but the
full-prong ones are from a completely different era.
It seems like the tail is wagging the dog here: the role of the database is to
document the full range of elements, and the role of the marketplace is to serve
demand for those elements, especially retired ones. Don't tell users they
can just work around it: the database exists precisely so they don't have
to "work around" it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 23:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Yes - that's precisely the point folks are trying to make. Different eras
of figures have different torsos, and that's important to a lot of collectors.
Almost every buyer who cares enough to even go online to buy classic space minifigure
torsos is looking for a particular type: they don't want to pay $5 for a
vintage torso with no prongs, only to receive the latest reissue from 2019, where
one can get the entire minifigure brand new for $3.
If you must, merge the no-prong and short-prong class space torsos - but the
full-prong ones are from a completely different era.
It seems like the tail is wagging the dog here: the role of the database is to
document the full range of elements, and the role of the marketplace is to serve
demand for those elements, especially retired ones. Don't tell users they
can just work around it: the database exists precisely so they don't have
to "work around" it.
|
this phenomenon occurs with Automobiles & 'After-Market Parts'
an 'all original parts' 1967 Camaro can fetch upwards of $100,000 USD..
while a 1967 Camaro rebuild from new After-Market parts would be valued at a
significant percentage less.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | this phenomenon occurs with Automobiles & 'After-Market Parts'
an 'all original parts' 1967 Camaro can fetch upwards of $100,000 USD..
while a 1967 Camaro rebuild from new After-Market parts would be valued at a
significant percentage less.
|
Perfect analogy. So true of vintage sets. It is already hard to find some of
the original parts needed. I pay a premium for certain parts, just because they
are going to be the exact part I need to complete a space set from 1980.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:52 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 00:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 205 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Yes - that's precisely the point folks are trying to make. Different eras
of figures have different torsos, and that's important to a lot of collectors.
Almost every buyer who cares enough to even go online to buy classic space minifigure
torsos is looking for a particular type: they don't want to pay $5 for a
vintage torso with no prongs, only to receive the latest reissue from 2019, where
one can get the entire minifigure brand new for $3.
|
BrickLink has never recognized different torsos, except for a handful of reissue
torsos that have been recognized in recent years. The classic entries are all
umbrella entries that can stand for any variant of the torso.
That is what BrickLink is right now. If you want it to be something else, then
please understand that this would mean a change, and a much more severe change
than we are making here. Where would you obtain the data of which torsos came
in which sets? And how many virtually duplicate minifigures are you willing to
add to the catalog to reflect the torsos, the heads, the hands, and on and on?
| | If you must, merge the no-prong and short-prong class space torsos - but the
full-prong ones are from a completely different era.
|
There are no "no-prong" or "short prong" entries in the catalog
and there never were any. 
| | It seems like the tail is wagging the dog here: the role of the database is to
document the full range of elements, and the role of the marketplace is to serve
demand for those elements, especially retired ones. Don't tell users they
can just work around it: the database exists precisely so they don't have
to "work around" it.
|
The role of BrickLink is to support the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers
(and builders) who do not care whether their minifigure torsos have inside ribs.
They need a practical, no-nonsense catalog that distinguishes the critical variants
and has an inventory system that is straightforward and easy to understand.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 18:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 99 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | The role of BrickLink is to support the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers
(and builders) who do not care whether their minifigure torsos have inside ribs.
They need a practical, no-nonsense catalog that distinguishes the critical variants
and has an inventory system that is straightforward and easy to understand.
|
The role of BrickLink should actually be to support *all* buyers, sellers, builders,
contributors, lurkers, etc. using the strength of the massive database of information
that has been generated by thousands of users over two decades. It would do this
by developing and building out a functional system that correctly exploits that
information instead of deciding what information to keep or get rid of. However,
we are in a situation where -- once again -- a subset of users are going
to unhappy with a site-wide decision. It is a different subset, but a subset
none-the-less. That is the reality, no matter how good the argument is to support
the decision.
The site really needs to get to a point where these decisions don't have
to be made by the site but afforded to each individual. For as long as this topic
has been discussed, the entire site could have been rebuilt from the ground up
to do it right. It is sad that we have to keep having discussions like this in
2024.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | The role of BrickLink is to support the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers
(and builders) who do not care whether their minifigure torsos have inside ribs.
They need a practical, no-nonsense catalog that distinguishes the critical variants
and has an inventory system that is straightforward and easy to understand.
|
The role of BrickLink should actually be to support *all* buyers, sellers, builders,
contributors, lurkers, etc. using the strength of the massive database of information
that has been generated by thousands of users over two decades. It would do this
by developing and building out a functional system that correctly exploits that
information instead of deciding what information to keep or get rid of. However,
we are in a situation where -- once again -- a subset of users are going
to unhappy with a site-wide decision. It is a different subset, but a subset
none-the-less. That is the reality, no matter how good the argument is to support
the decision.
The site really needs to get to a point where these decisions don't have
to be made by the site but afforded to each individual. For as long as this topic
has been discussed, the entire site could have been rebuilt from the ground up
to do it right. It is sad that we have to keep having discussions like this in
2024.
|
Amen! I pride myself on being one of the sellers that actually gets the variants
correct, this seems like 5 steps backwards instead of a step forward. Once again
Bricklink is creating work for all their sellers to save their own neck by not
investing into redeveloping their database which continues to have unexplained
errors.
Get your act together and move forward instead of backwards.
Tyson.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hsousa | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 11:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, leopard37 writes:
| |
Amen! I pride myself on being one of the sellers that actually gets the variants
correct, this seems like 5 steps backwards instead of a step forward. Once again
Bricklink is creating work for all their sellers to save their own neck by not
investing into redeveloping their database which continues to have unexplained
errors.
Get your act together and move forward instead of backwards.
Tyson.
|
It's going to be disgraceful if Bricklink decides to merge the goo'ole
classic space torso with its reissue. Daniel will be rolling on his grave if
this happens.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 11:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | It's going to be disgraceful if Bricklink decides to merge the goo'ole
classic space torso with its reissue. Daniel will be rolling on his grave if
this happens.
|
This is a disgraceful and unappropriate post.
Daniel developped a site to make possible buyers and sellers have transactions.
A marketplace.
It's not a LEGO Catalog, even if it has the best - and still will have it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | The role of BrickLink is to support the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers
(and builders) who do not care whether their minifigure torsos have inside ribs.
They need a practical, no-nonsense catalog that distinguishes the critical variants
and has an inventory system that is straightforward and easy to understand.
|
The role of BrickLink should actually be to support *all* buyers, sellers, builders,
contributors, lurkers, etc. using the strength of the massive database of information
that has been generated by thousands of users over two decades. It would do this
by developing and building out a functional system that correctly exploits that
information instead of deciding what information to keep or get rid of.
|
True, implement a feature were the buyer could select an option where "variants
do not matter" in their searches. Same with stores, allow them an entry
option where all variants are included.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | JNoise | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | The role of BrickLink is to support the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers
(and builders) who do not care whether their minifigure torsos have inside ribs.
They need a practical, no-nonsense catalog that distinguishes the critical variants
and has an inventory system that is straightforward and easy to understand.
|
This statement is totally insane!!!
We users want a catalog where it is clear which part belongs to which set. This
includes the fact that certain parts were only used in certain sets. And when
you open the parts list of the set, then only the parts that were actually in
the set should be in the list!
That's exactly why I came to the site, to see exactly which parts were included
in the set
and as a seller I want to sell exactly the parts that belong to this set!
without having to add any comments or descriptions
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 00:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, JNoise writes:
| | | | The role of BrickLink is to support the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers
(and builders) who do not care whether their minifigure torsos have inside ribs.
They need a practical, no-nonsense catalog that distinguishes the critical variants
and has an inventory system that is straightforward and easy to understand.
|
This statement is totally insane!!!
We users want a catalog where it is clear which part belongs to which set. This
includes the fact that certain parts were only used in certain sets. And when
you open the parts list of the set, then only the parts that were actually in
the set should be in the list!
That's exactly why I came to the site, to see exactly which parts were included
in the set
and as a seller I want to sell exactly the parts that belong to this set!
without having to add any comments or descriptions
|
This. 100%. I care about rebuilding old sets exactly as they would have come
out, not with other variants. When I sell a part, it's a lot more work to
indicate a variant in a note than to just list the right part. Not to mention,
over time the older variants will become more important, more sought, and this
change will only increase the misery of those seeking the right parts as time
goes on.
And for what? The argument is "the variants don't make a difference to
most people"--OK, so why does it make a difference to remove the variant?
If a buyer doesn't care which one and gets the wrong one, what difference
to them? If a seller states they won't distinguish and someone buys from
them, what difference to them? But to anyone seeking the variants, it MAKES A
DIFFERENCE.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, JNoise writes:
| | | | The role of BrickLink is to support the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers
(and builders) who do not care whether their minifigure torsos have inside ribs.
They need a practical, no-nonsense catalog that distinguishes the critical variants
and has an inventory system that is straightforward and easy to understand.
|
This statement is totally insane!!!
We users want a catalog where it is clear which part belongs to which set. This
includes the fact that certain parts were only used in certain sets. And when
you open the parts list of the set, then only the parts that were actually in
the set should be in the list!
That's exactly why I came to the site, to see exactly which parts were included
in the set
and as a seller I want to sell exactly the parts that belong to this set!
without having to add any comments or descriptions
|
This. 100%. I care about rebuilding old sets exactly as they would have come
out, not with other variants. When I sell a part, it's a lot more work to
indicate a variant in a note than to just list the right part. Not to mention,
over time the older variants will become more important, more sought, and this
change will only increase the misery of those seeking the right parts as time
goes on.
And for what? The argument is "the variants don't make a difference to
most people"--OK, so why does it make a difference to remove the variant?
If a buyer doesn't care which one and gets the wrong one, what difference
to them? If a seller states they won't distinguish and someone buys from
them, what difference to them? But to anyone seeking the variants, it MAKES A
DIFFERENCE.
|
YES, Yes, YES!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | And for what? The argument is "the variants don't make a difference to
most people"--OK, so why does it make a difference to remove the variant?
|
It is because having variants splits inventory.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 15:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | And for what? The argument is "the variants don't make a difference to
most people"--OK, so why does it make a difference to remove the variant?
|
It is because having variants splits inventory.
|
Much more, Studio!
Half of the times you're building and you select the wrong version.
If you don't check EACH part price, then you end up with a silly Wanted-List.
All this because 3068a were available 40 years ago, for God's Sake!
Come on!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | And for what? The argument is "the variants don't make a difference to
most people"--OK, so why does it make a difference to remove the variant?
|
It is because having variants splits inventory.
|
Much more, Studio!
Half of the times you're building and you select the wrong version.
If you don't check EACH part price, then you end up with a silly Wanted-List.
All this because 3068a were available 40 years ago, for God's Sake!
Come on!
|
Good point, I don't use it much so didn't think about it. Maybe Studio
should have a setting for current parts only, or only have parts from the past
5 or 10 years.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
Good point, I don't use it much so didn't think about it. Maybe Studio
should have a setting for current parts only, or only have parts from the past
5 or 10 years.
|
It’s something that comes often. One can hide the older parts (they go in a
special palette called Hidden parts) but that’s a pain to do it, one part at
a time (or by entire categories).
Usual advice is to use the BDP palettes: they only have parts that will be produced
in 2024 (series 1&2) and 2025 (3&4).
The problems with “from the past 5 or 10 years” are:
— Is it 5 or 10? And if someone else prefers 15 or 20?
— How accurate the catalogue is for that? ‘Not very’ when there’s variants used
in sets that spanned many years.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
Good point, I don't use it much so didn't think about it. Maybe Studio
should have a setting for current parts only, or only have parts from the past
5 or 10 years.
|
It’s something that comes often. One can hide the older parts (they go in a
special palette called Hidden parts) but that’s a pain to do it, one part at
a time (or by entire categories).
Usual advice is to use the BDP palettes: they only have parts that will be produced
in 2024 (series 1&2) and 2025 (3&4).
The problems with “from the past 5 or 10 years” are:
— Is it 5 or 10? And if someone else prefers 15 or 20?
— How accurate the catalogue is for that? ‘Not very’ when there’s variants used
in sets that spanned many years.
|
As I dont really use it, it doesn't realty bother me enough to think too
hard about it. But I can imagine that it could be either a static thing, for
example fixed at 5 years and have production lists for the years, or it could
be more dynamic and let users select the production years. Or maybe go very dynamic
and allow users to select options such as parts must be available in their country,
let them set maximum price of any part, with a minimum number of sellers that
have the part. For example, a designer could set it to only allow parts available
in the UK with a maximum price of 50p, and be available from at least five sellers
with those constraints. Then update a local availability library based on whatever
constraints the user selects. Or have warnings when parts become scarce, so
a yellow warning if the number of (local) sellers of a part in the build drops
below X1 and a red warning if it drops below X2. That might help get designers
to think about rarity and prompt them to buy if the required parts are selling
out and they intend to build their design.
But as noted, I prefer to build physically with parts I already have, so it's
not really an issue for me.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
As I dont really use it, it doesn't realty bother me enough to think too
hard about it. But I can imagine that it could be either a static thing, for
example fixed at 5 years and have production lists for the years, or it could
be more dynamic and let users select the production years. Or maybe go very dynamic
and allow users to select options such as parts must be available in their country,
let them set maximum price of any part, with a minimum number of sellers that
have the part. For example, a designer could set it to only allow parts available
in the UK with a maximum price of 50p, and be available from at least five sellers
with those constraints. Then update a local availability library based on whatever
constraints the user selects. Or have warnings when parts become scarce, so
a yellow warning if the number of (local) sellers of a part in the build drops
below X1 and a red warning if it drops below X2. That might help get designers
to think about rarity and prompt them to buy if the required parts are selling
out and they intend to build their design.
|
Well, that’s becoming complicated
Availability is not exactly the same as production years. Price generally tells
you if the part is available and Studio gives you the prices (in a tooltip or
in the Status line) and indicators (text in white/yellow/gold in the parts palette,
dollar signs in the colour palette). But, yeah, you need to check the parts
one by one and the “wrong” parts are still in the palette or you need to hide
them yourself.
| | But as noted, I prefer to build physically with parts I already have, so it's
not really an issue for me.
|
Preparing digitally greatly reduces sorting time
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
Well, that’s becoming complicated
|
Yes, fully customisable! Those are the types of things I usually think of when
buying parts. If I'm likely to need 500 of a part in the long term and only
3 UK sellers have 10 each, I'll redesign using a different part. If im likely
to need 10 and only one seller has 20, I'll buy them right away. If I might
need 10 but not right away and 20 sellers have 20, I'll leave it for now.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick said
| | Good point, I don't use it much so didn't think about it. Maybe Studio
should have a setting for current parts only, or only have parts from the past
5 or 10 years.
|
This I think is an awful idea. It would cripple a good chunk of the Bionicle
community for starters. Most people there use a stud.io as an alternative to
building with physical bricks as it allows people to use parts that are scarce
or expensive to be creative with their own creations because they wouldn't
afford the hobby otherwise. Furthermore its not only a monetary issue as some
use stud.io as a tool to host and create models for fan projects and other 3d
works.
On a different note stud.io is just a good resource to also experiment with out
of production parts before commiting to a purchase or moc.
I'm sorry this is a bit off topic but I wanted to explain thus side of the
argument
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:16 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | And for what? The argument is "the variants don't make a difference to
most people"--OK, so why does it make a difference to remove the variant?
|
It is because having variants splits inventory.
|
No, it doesn't. New and old splits them. Distinguishing between quality gradients
splits them. Adding them without combining the inventories splits them. These
are normal practices and nobody cares. However, actually having two entries accounting
for different variances that are important to collectors or for set completion
is exactly what a website like this should be expected to champion.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Yes - that's precisely the point folks are trying to make. Different eras
of figures have different torsos, and that's important to a lot of collectors.
Almost every buyer who cares enough to even go online to buy classic space minifigure
torsos is looking for a particular type: they don't want to pay $5 for a
vintage torso with no prongs, only to receive the latest reissue from 2019, where
one can get the entire minifigure brand new for $3.
|
BrickLink has never recognized different torsos, except for a handful of reissue
torsos that have been recognized in recent years. The classic entries are all
umbrella entries that can stand for any variant of the torso.
That is what BrickLink is right now. If you want it to be something else, then
please understand that this would mean a change, and a much more severe change
than we are making here. Where would you obtain the data of which torsos came
in which sets? And how many virtually duplicate minifigures are you willing to
add to the catalog to reflect the torsos, the heads, the hands, and on and on?
| | If you must, merge the no-prong and short-prong class space torsos - but the
full-prong ones are from a completely different era.
|
There are no "no-prong" or "short prong" entries in the catalog
and there never were any.
| | It seems like the tail is wagging the dog here: the role of the database is to
document the full range of elements, and the role of the marketplace is to serve
demand for those elements, especially retired ones. Don't tell users they
can just work around it: the database exists precisely so they don't have
to "work around" it.
|
The role of BrickLink is to support the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers
(and builders) who do not care whether their minifigure torsos have inside ribs.
They need a practical, no-nonsense catalog that distinguishes the critical variants
and has an inventory system that is straightforward and easy to understand.
|
Buyers who are looking for Classic Space torsos (to pick perhaps the most prominent
example) want to know if they are buying a torso from 1979-87 or from 2014-2019.
It makes a difference - not to the majority of BL buyers, but to the majority
of BL buyers WHO ARE IN THE MARKET FOR THAT TYPE OF PART, which is the key distinction
you are either missing or willfully ignoring.
The market prices for vintage torsos (in good condition) and reissue torsos tend
to be quite different. When you remove the ability of buyers to Want-List and
search specifically for one or the other, that makes buying the desired version
nearly impossible for buyers - and it makes it very difficult for sellers too,
because if the vintage torso goes for $9 and the reissue for $4, no buyer wants
to roll the dice and pay $6.50 hoping they end up with a good deal on a vintage
one and not a bad deal on a reissue one. The fact that sellers are asked to specify
which version it is in their notes is of extremely limited use since you can't
search that, and since notes don't show up in every view a buyer will routinely
encounter while searching and browsing for parts and viewing in-process carts.
As to the role of Bricklink, you are the official database of the history of
Lego elements, since you are now owned by the Lego Group. Merging Duplo elements
with and without bottom tubes makes sense since adult BL buyers generally don't
care about that. But there are several variants you are merging that a lot of
BL buyers care about - smooth vs pebbled slopes being one - because how do you
think someone who spends $100s or $1000s on BL to complete their gian MOC is
going to feel when they put a bunch of recently-ordered slopes on the MOC and
the sheen/texture of the slopes don't match? A fine point and an obsessive
one perhaps, but those are the folks that make BL a going concern, and you seem
not to be fully cognizant of that.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
There are no "no-prong" or "short prong" entries in the catalog
and there never were any.
|
Can we get those added? It would be so helpful to me as I work to complete some
vintage sets.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WildBricks | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | If you must, merge the no-prong and short-prong class space torsos - but the
full-prong ones are from a completely different era.
|
+1, This is the best of both worlds. It reduces the catalog entry AND still
allows collectors to distinguish the moulds they find important.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | It seems like the tail is wagging the dog here: the role of the database is to
document the full range of elements, and the role of the marketplace is to serve
demand for those elements, especially retired ones. Don't tell users they
can just work around it: the database exists precisely so they don't have
to "work around" it.
|
Well stated!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 00:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I see in the list that there are some space torsos so does that mean
And
Would be merged?
|
Yes, unless it could otherwise be distinguished by the print alone.
| | Or am I misunderstanding. The old version of this torso is quite
difficult to get in good condition so it could get very difficult to find if
a buyer is looking for a true “classic” version of this torso as classic space
fans are “picky” (not in a bad way just didn’t know what other word to use)
about variants and similar
|
Point taken. A few other points, however:
1. You can still list whatever variant you wish using the notes field.
2. The catalog will still distinguish PRINTED variants of these same parts.
3. Because this variant involved minifigure inventories, it opens the door to
an unsustainable situation where every mold variant of every part on a minifigure
is recognized. To properly handle these in the BrickLink system, we would need
to add thousands (literally) of permutations of minifigures which are essentially
the same thing.
Take a look at this fan site for an excellent torso image:
https://62bricks.blog/2017/04/09/minifig-torso-types/
There are actually three types of torsos based on mold alone. Are we going to
then go through and try to figure out which minifigures had which mold? And then,
which sets had which minifigures? Remember that there were also different kinds
of heads, different helmets and different hands.
|
Considering helmets, why not adding some notes for each space (and town) minifig
with helmet, giving details of what sets came with what type of helmet? Like
Minifig Sp.... (like sp127)
This minifig in following sets came with with helmet "variant1": set
X1, X2, early releases of X3,...
This minifig in following sets came with with helmet "variant1": set
Y1, Y2, later releases of X3,...
The note can be added to the inventory of each related set.
This way, people who care about these things, can easily find what they need
to know.
Similar thing can be done with torsos.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | rab1234 | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 09:11 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 92 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| It certainly seems like an exception should be made to leave the small handful
of classic era figures distinguishable as a separate catalog entry. Classic space
is literally the only one I can think of where this is extremely important to
buyers. I’ve sold many classic space figures for $30+ because they were in good
condition and original. The effect of merging will not only frustrate collectors
and sellers, but effectively cost bricklink money. The merge will lead to a
downward pull on prices. Currently I can list a black classic space fig with
comments and it will still be noticed on the first or second page. Do this change
and it becomes difficult to find. That along with the average sold price tanking
will lead to fewer high end sales and prices of the classics dropping or sitting
in inventory forever.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I see in the list that there are some space torsos so does that mean
And
Would be merged?
|
Yes, unless it could otherwise be distinguished by the print alone.
| | Or am I misunderstanding. The old version of this torso is quite
difficult to get in good condition so it could get very difficult to find if
a buyer is looking for a true “classic” version of this torso as classic space
fans are “picky” (not in a bad way just didn’t know what other word to use)
about variants and similar
|
Point taken. A few other points, however:
1. You can still list whatever variant you wish using the notes field.
2. The catalog will still distinguish PRINTED variants of these same parts.
3. Because this variant involved minifigure inventories, it opens the door to
an unsustainable situation where every mold variant of every part on a minifigure
is recognized. To properly handle these in the BrickLink system, we would need
to add thousands (literally) of permutations of minifigures which are essentially
the same thing.
Take a look at this fan site for an excellent torso image:
https://62bricks.blog/2017/04/09/minifig-torso-types/
There are actually three types of torsos based on mold alone. Are we going to
then go through and try to figure out which minifigures had which mold? And then,
which sets had which minifigures? Remember that there were also different kinds
of heads, different helmets and different hands.
What we're doing with this is drawing the line with minifigure parts. If
it doesn't matter enough to make different versions of the minifigure for
each variant, we shouldn't distinguish the parts in the catalog.
4. Another point that is often overlooked is the situation the catalog and marketplace
finds itself in right at this moment. The "early" entry for these torsos
(which is the one you are saying is more highly sought after) is actually undetermined,
and you are not guaranteed to get the early type. ANY type of the torso can be
sold under the original umbrella entry.
To make it easier for the buyer and seller of early minifigure parts, we would
need to add a specific entry just for the early parts, and the main entry would
encompass "everything else, including the early parts". But that is not
what we currently have on BrickLink.
Add to that the uncertainty buyers have of getting the correct part when they
purchase. Personally I would not be sure it was the correct variant unless the
seller expressly mentioned it in the notes. So then we are back to using the
notes anyway.
By the way, for you early minifigure enthusiasts, there is an upside for you.
We will finally be able to completely reflect the solid stud head in the inventory
system. Solid stud vs hollow stud will still be a thing, and stronger than ever.
So we will distinguish the stud type for the earliest minifigures.
This effectively means that the following list of minifigure heads will finally
have a place in the inventory system:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=3626a*&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | brickotronic | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2024 18:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | 1. You can still list whatever variant you wish using the notes field.
|
This will not help with finding the best seller using wanted lists. I first have
to create a wanted list, find the best sellers and have to ask them, if they
sell the piece I want. If not, I have to manually find a seller.
| | There are actually three types of torsos based on mold alone. Are we going to
then go through and try to figure out which minifigures had which mold? And then,
which sets had which minifigures? Remember that there were also different kinds
of heads, different helmets and different hands.
|
I get the point. Still, the better option would be to have an official "undetermined"
part which is used in set (or minifig) inventories as long as it's unknown
which mould type went into this set. When it's known, it should use the specific
one.
| | 4. Another point that is often overlooked is the situation the catalog and marketplace
finds itself in right at this moment. The "early" entry for these torsos
(which is the one you are saying is more highly sought after) is actually undetermined,
and you are not guaranteed to get the early type. ANY type of the torso can be
sold under the original umbrella entry.
|
In this case, a proper determined one should be introduced.
| | To make it easier for the buyer and seller of early minifigure parts, we would
need to add a specific entry just for the early parts, and the main entry would
encompass "everything else, including the early parts". But that is not
what we currently have on BrickLink.
|
I think, you should have three entries, if there are two variants. The early,
the late and undetermined. If a buyer has the undetermined in the wanted list,
he should also get suggestions for the specific ones.
| | Add to that the uncertainty buyers have of getting the correct part when they
purchase. Personally I would not be sure it was the correct variant unless the
seller expressly mentioned it in the notes. So then we are back to using the
notes anyway.
|
With my suggestion, sellers have the option to put in the pieces as undetermined
when they don't want to put the effort in. So, when sellers list it as a
specific one, buyers know that the seller cares. So, this will get more reliable
with my suggestion.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | brickbiters | | Posted: | Feb 17, 2024 13:48 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | brickbiters | | Posted: | Feb 17, 2024 13:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I see in the list that there are some space torsos so does that mean
And
Would be merged?
|
Yes, unless it could otherwise be distinguished by the print alone.
| | Or am I misunderstanding. The old version of this torso is quite
difficult to get in good condition so it could get very difficult to find if
a buyer is looking for a true “classic” version of this torso as classic space
fans are “picky” (not in a bad way just didn’t know what other word to use)
about variants and similar
|
Point taken. A few other points, however:
1. You can still list whatever variant you wish using the notes field.
2. The catalog will still distinguish PRINTED variants of these same parts.
3. Because this variant involved minifigure inventories, it opens the door to
an unsustainable situation where every mold variant of every part on a minifigure
is recognized. To properly handle these in the BrickLink system, we would need
to add thousands (literally) of permutations of minifigures which are essentially
the same thing.
Take a look at this fan site for an excellent torso image:
https://62bricks.blog/2017/04/09/minifig-torso-types/
There are actually three types of torsos based on mold alone. Are we going to
then go through and try to figure out which minifigures had which mold? And then,
which sets had which minifigures? Remember that there were also different kinds
of heads, different helmets and different hands.
What we're doing with this is drawing the line with minifigure parts. If
it doesn't matter enough to make different versions of the minifigure for
each variant, we shouldn't distinguish the parts in the catalog.
4. Another point that is often overlooked is the situation the catalog and marketplace
finds itself in right at this moment. The "early" entry for these torsos
(which is the one you are saying is more highly sought after) is actually undetermined,
and you are not guaranteed to get the early type. ANY type of the torso can be
sold under the original umbrella entry.
To make it easier for the buyer and seller of early minifigure parts, we would
need to add a specific entry just for the early parts, and the main entry would
encompass "everything else, including the early parts". But that is not
what we currently have on BrickLink.
Add to that the uncertainty buyers have of getting the correct part when they
purchase. Personally I would not be sure it was the correct variant unless the
seller expressly mentioned it in the notes. So then we are back to using the
notes anyway.
By the way, for you early minifigure enthusiasts, there is an upside for you.
We will finally be able to completely reflect the solid stud head in the inventory
system. Solid stud vs hollow stud will still be a thing, and stronger than ever.
So we will distinguish the stud type for the earliest minifigures.
This effectively means that the following list of minifigure heads will finally
have a place in the inventory system:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=3626a*&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W
|
you keep telling people to use the notes field to put details in. what kind of
advice is that? do you know how many people will be trying to find a
part based on the non uniform information in the notes field? everyone will make
up their own descriptions and there will be no way to find what you are looking
for, much less see all the sellers that have the same description in their notes.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 12:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Yes I agree with you.(I’m one of those picky space fans.) #itmatters |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitolegos writes:
| | Yes I agree with you.(I’m one of those picky space fans.) #itmatters
|
🍕🍕🍕
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 12:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Saitolegos writes:
| | Yes I agree with you.(I’m one of those picky space fans.) #itmatters
|
🍕🍕🍕
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕👁️🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 14:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| On the note of what you originally said, the old red and yellow(at least this
is what I think) should be added as different colours.
I buy a lot of used Lego, and sometimes I get almost complete sets. So I take
to bricklink to buy the missing parts.(some have been bought at your store
) and occasionally when I receive a part it’s the new yellow. the problem
became very obvious to me when I began to part together a half complete Blacktron
renegade set. The new yellow was sooooo obvious. (I like things period appropriate)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 14:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitolegos writes:
| | On the note of what you originally said, the old red and yellow(at least this
is what I think) should be added as different colours.
I buy a lot of used Lego, and sometimes I get almost complete sets. So I take
to bricklink to buy the missing parts.(some have been bought at your store )
|
| | and occasionally when I receive a part it’s the new yellow. the problem
became very obvious to me when I began to part together a half complete Blacktron
renegade set. The new yellow was sooooo obvious. (I like things period appropriate)
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 00:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 252 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
A tough and long overdue tackle, Russell. Bravo!
You've got my support, in this no doubt undesirable yet much needed BL task.
Anyone willing to stop the can from being kicked further down the road, as I
see it, deserves respect and support.
-Thanks
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | RecycledBrick | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 01:00 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 239 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 01:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 129 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
it would be nice if when anyone typed in the number on the brick in the search
bar & hit enter, it popped up all options associated with that number..
{hypothetical example:
when i type in part #4006 that is on the brick , all variants are shown. *4006,
4006a, 4006cR778, 4006u@@@11, whatever.. }
it would make buying & selling / searching & posting in general x10000 easier
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 01:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Adding a * already does that. If you want an exact search you can use “3001”
but if you want all 3001 version you use “3001*”
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | novabrick | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 03:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 191 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
So, you merge the seat variants but keep
and
At least I think it's a similar thing.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 03:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 120 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
So, you merge the seat variants but keep
and
At least I think it's a similar thing.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
hey a perfect real-time example of what io am referring too:
item #3855
when searched, 3855a does not get shown on main results, only noted as a variant
on the 3855 item page
new buyers might not be aware of this & it creates 1-2 extra page clicks or sellers
researching items to post
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | BestBuyBricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 04:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, PlanetEarthToys writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
So, you merge the seat variants but keep
and
At least I think it's a similar thing.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
hey a perfect real-time example of what io am referring too:
item #3855
when searched, 3855a does not get shown on main results, only noted as a variant
on the 3855 item page
new buyers might not be aware of this & it creates 1-2 extra page clicks or sellers
researching items to post
|
Isn't this what the asterisk is for? If you search 3855* it comes up.
Asterisk can be used in any search.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 04:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BestBuyBricks writes:
| | In Catalog, PlanetEarthToys writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
So, you merge the seat variants but keep
and
At least I think it's a similar thing.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
hey a perfect real-time example of what io am referring too:
item #3855
when searched, 3855a does not get shown on main results, only noted as a variant
on the 3855 item page
new buyers might not be aware of this & it creates 1-2 extra page clicks or sellers
researching items to post
|
Isn't this what the asterisk is for? If you search 3855* it comes up.
Asterisk can be used in any search.
|
you can toss me in the Duh category, as i didn't even know that & i've
been using BL for around 2 years now.... how would new members or guest buyers
know that...?
i think you just proved my point.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 04:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BestBuyBricks writes:
| | In Catalog, PlanetEarthToys writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
So, you merge the seat variants but keep
and
At least I think it's a similar thing.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
hey a perfect real-time example of what io am referring too:
item #3855
when searched, 3855a does not get shown on main results, only noted as a variant
on the 3855 item page
new buyers might not be aware of this & it creates 1-2 extra page clicks or sellers
researching items to post
|
Isn't this what the asterisk is for? If you search 3855* it comes up.
Asterisk can be used in any search.
|
also just for context, the Asterisk icon notification ( * , *! ) only appears
under the image in Store Inventory search, it's not noted in Main Search
results to notify there are variants of the item being searched for.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 05:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, PlanetEarthToys writes:
| | […]
| | Isn't this what the asterisk is for? If you search 3855* it comes up.
Asterisk can be used in any search.
|
|
Help page: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=29
| | also just for context, the Asterisk icon notification ( * , *! ) only appears
under the image in Store Inventory search, it's not noted in Main Search
results to notify there are variants of the item being searched for.
|
* and ! under images have nothing to do with variants:
“4. A small asterisk (*) below a thumbnail image indicates that there is a large
image (like the one you see on this page) available when you click on the small
thumbnail.
5. An exclamation mark (!) below a thumbnail image indicates that there is 3D
data available.”
(Text found on the image page for parts, for instance https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemPic.asp?P=3855a
)
That being said:
— Yes, the asterisk as a joker is a hidden/obscure feature.
— Yes, ‘*’ and ‘!’ are text-based indicators and are not adequate for a 21st
century website.
— Yes, help for ‘*’ and ‘!’ is very hard to find.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Andy_Bell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 11:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | That being said:
— Yes, the asterisk as a joker is a hidden/obscure feature.
|
I'd put the asterisk as an archaic or old-fashioned feature but I would hardly
call it a hidden or obscure feature.
The asterisk as a search wildcard is used by both Microsoft (since the DOS days)
and Google in their search engines. Not an Apple user but have a hunch they use
it the same way.
Lack of user knowledge about standards does not make it hidden - rather it is
so ubiquitous that it should not need explanation.
However, it is the 2nd item in the search help...
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=29
AB
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | That being said:
— Yes, the asterisk as a joker is a hidden/obscure feature.
|
I'd put the asterisk as an archaic or old-fashioned feature but I would hardly
call it a hidden or obscure feature.
|
On BL, it is hidden and/or obscure.
| | The asterisk as a search wildcard is used by both Microsoft (since the DOS days)
and Google in their search engines. Not an Apple user but have a hunch they use
it the same way.
Lack of user knowledge about standards does not make it hidden - rather it is
so ubiquitous that it should not need explanation.
|
The one on BL doesn’t work the same (it works for the end of the word), making
it more obscure and certainly not a standard. (Now, the DOS asterisk doesn’t
work with dots, so you had to type *.*, but for the rest it worked like the other
shell jokers.)
Also, BL doesn’t use ? (to replace only one character), while other shell-like
jokers do.
The help page isn’t easy to find: there’s no mention of the asterisk or link
to the help page on the different search pages. That makes the feature hidden.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 14:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
So, you merge the seat variants but keep
and
At least I think it's a similar thing.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
I hope they don't merge this one. Very important difference for those of
us restoring older sets.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
So, you merge the seat variants but keep
and
At least I think it's a similar thing.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
I hope they don't merge this one. Very important difference for those of
us restoring older sets.
|
Just have one listing each for window glass and window frame--what difference
does any of this make? A window is a window, amarite?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
So, you merge the seat variants but keep
and
At least I think it's a similar thing.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
I hope they don't merge this one. Very important difference for those of
us restoring older sets.
|
Eventually, all sets are "older sets" and there will be people who care
to have those older set as close to original as possible. In other words, today's
modern parts are tomorrow's vintage parts. Hence, one of the issues with
the current approach being espoused by BrickLink management. Which other variants
are going to be determined by a few to be unimportant for everyone?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Eventually, all sets are "older sets" and there will be people who care
to have those older set as close to original as possible. In other words, today's
modern parts are tomorrow's vintage parts. Hence, one of the issues with
the current approach being espoused by BrickLink management. Which other variants
are going to be determined by a few to be unimportant for everyone?
|
Well there is this part, where LEGO currently uses different element IDs for
different shaped claws, and BL already merges them together.
* | | 48729b Bar 1L with Clip Mechanical Claw - Cut Edges and Hole on Side
Parts: Bar |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:37 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Eventually, all sets are "older sets" and there will be people who care
to have those older set as close to original as possible. In other words, today's
modern parts are tomorrow's vintage parts. Hence, one of the issues with
the current approach being espoused by BrickLink management. Which other variants
are going to be determined by a few to be unimportant for everyone?
|
Well there is this part, where LEGO currently uses different element IDs for
different shaped claws, and BL already merges them together.
* | | 48729b Bar 1L with Clip Mechanical Claw - Cut Edges and Hole on Side
Parts: Bar |
|
You are arguing it's OK to lose information about something on account that
more possible information about something different isn't offered.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Eventually, all sets are "older sets" and there will be people who care
to have those older set as close to original as possible. In other words, today's
modern parts are tomorrow's vintage parts. Hence, one of the issues with
the current approach being espoused by BrickLink management. Which other variants
are going to be determined by a few to be unimportant for everyone?
|
Well there is this part, where LEGO currently uses different element IDs for
different shaped claws, and BL already merges them together.
* | | 48729b Bar 1L with Clip Mechanical Claw - Cut Edges and Hole on Side
Parts: Bar |
|
Yes. One of the side effects of not having a granular system is that we as catalog
administrators have to also make decisions for the masses. That is why I champion
the idea of an umbrella system that works for everyone and leaves no variant
decisions to anyone else but yourself. It truly baffles me that there are others,
including BrickLink, that are not championing for the same system.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
has these lots currently available for purchase:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3855a&C=12#T=P&C=12
Unless you're talking about restoring a set for a personal collection, it
is economically unfeasible to buy this part for set restorations. For example,
set 6382 has 11 of these. Many people who want the original variant talk a good
game but aren't willing to pay.
If I use the newer variant I will note it in the listing and show it in photos.
I don't mix variants when restoring old sets, it's 100% one or the other.
Never had a problem selling the sets with the newer variant included.
In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| |
I hope they don't merge this one. Very important difference for those of
us restoring older sets.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That seems to suggest that all the 30??old could be at risk in the future, emphasis
on could.
It might be suggested by some, that these aren’t needed as they don’t look or
build differently to the newer versions.
Sorry if this has been mentioned already.
| | If you notice, all the items in this merge proposal are basic parts, central
to the building process.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
So, you merge the seat variants but keep
and
At least I think it's a similar thing.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
I hope they don't merge this one. Very important difference for those of
us restoring older sets.
|
We're not merging that one. There is no impetus to alter things that are
on the periphery. Those types of items are completely in the realm of the collector.
If you notice, all the items in this merge proposal are basic parts, central
to the building process.
|
Individual patterned DUPLO bricks, individual patterned minifigure heads, and
the reissue torsos are not central to the building process. And neither are most
hinges. That cuts down the list to very few things that are "basic parts".
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 04:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 178 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| For the sake of usability with the system we have now on Bricklink I understand
this change, but please don't forget the countless hours and thousand contributions
from a lot of members for more than 20 years with a snap next month.
Take a backup of the Bricklink catalog and its inventories as of now, so in case
you migrate the site to a new database structure in the future this data can
be reinstated.
A solution for now would be to add notes to the inventories to assure which variant
was used in, but that might be too much manual work... For parts that are merged
to the "global variant" can this be changed by change requests so that
it gets stored in the logs?
This will also broke many links on Google, Rebrickable and Brickset, may be wise
to contact the last and notify them the ID changes. And if possible a htaccess
rewrite rule could be implemented so that the website redirects automatically.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 06:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 102 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | For the sake of usability with the system we have now on Bricklink I understand
this change, but please don't forget the countless hours and thousand contributions
from a lot of members for more than 20 years with a snap next month.
|
Well, you can submit inventory change requests again once an alternate variant
is merged to the regular variant in a set Inventory, to get some of your credit
back. If you are still motivated to do so. My motivation is gone at that point.
| |
Take a backup of the Bricklink catalog and its inventories as of now, so in case
you migrate the site to a new database structure in the future this data can
be reinstated.
A solution for now would be to add notes to the inventories to assure which variant
was used in, but that might be too much manual work... For parts that are merged
to the "global variant" can this be changed by change requests so that
it gets stored in the logs?
This will also broke many links on Google, Rebrickable and Brickset, may be wise
to contact the last and notify them the ID changes. And if possible a htaccess
rewrite rule could be implemented so that the website redirects automatically.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Polentone | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 05:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 160 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| We know you are joking but don't scare us with this idea.
For real, it will damage the site. Just keep it the way it is or just use the
suggestions of the other users in this thread.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 06:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 141 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| While I am one who would advocate for variants, the line has to be drawn somewhere
reasonable as they get out of hand quickly otherwise. However, for many of these
there's a lot of inventory data that has been gathered for years now that
would be lost... However, this is also a marketplace, not a data center.
That aside, looking at the specific cases, I hold no qualms with most of these
except:
1. "with groove". At least in my opinion, that one is a substantial functional
difference. The groove is a very noticeable visual difference, and obviously
it also serves a function. I don't forsee many cases where one would be ordering
and be happy with either or, nor any cases where this would make cataloging difficult
given how obvious the difference is. As a buyer, I would value this distinction.
2. Reissue prints, as they are new, separate prints typically separated by several
decades. Separating the originals from the copies I believe is important.
I would also propose a merge of:
As much as I would like to investigate the switch to 89652, I believe the difference
is ultimately meaningless for most buyers.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 06:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | While I am one who would advocate for variants, the line has to be drawn somewhere
reasonable as they get out of hand quickly otherwise. However, for many of these
there's a lot of inventory data that has been gathered for years now that
would be lost... However, this is also a marketplace, not a data center.
|
Thinking some more about this. My feeling is that taking all of that work people
have put in for free to identify the use of variants in sets, and just throwing
it away looks kind of insulting. However, I do not intend to speak on behalf
of those who've done all that work.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 19:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 97 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | While I am one who would advocate for variants, the line has to be drawn somewhere
reasonable as they get out of hand quickly otherwise. However, for many of these
there's a lot of inventory data that has been gathered for years now that
would be lost... However, this is also a marketplace, not a data center.
|
Thinking some more about this. My feeling is that taking all of that work people
have put in for free to identify the use of variants in sets, and just throwing
it away looks kind of insulting. However, I do not intend to speak on behalf
of those who've done all that work.
|
As someone who has done some of that work, your thoughts do speak for me.
But I am also under no illusion that LEGO BrickLink will do whatever they want
to do when they want to do it, no matter what public opinion says. In the past,
I have been for some big sweeping changes, and I have been completely against
others. But they were all done. So, no one in this entire thread should fool
themselves that they really have any say in the matter.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 16:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|  heart breaking but sadly true. |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Bobflip | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | While I am one who would advocate for variants, the line has to be drawn somewhere
reasonable as they get out of hand quickly otherwise. However, for many of these
there's a lot of inventory data that has been gathered for years now that
would be lost... However, this is also a marketplace, not a data center.
That aside, looking at the specific cases, I hold no qualms with most of these
except:
1. "with groove". At least in my opinion, that one is a substantial functional
difference. The groove is a very noticeable visual difference, and obviously
it also serves a function. I don't forsee many cases where one would be ordering
and be happy with either or, nor any cases where this would make cataloging difficult
given how obvious the difference is. As a buyer, I would value this distinction.
2. Reissue prints, as they are new, separate prints typically separated by several
decades. Separating the originals from the copies I believe is important.
I would also propose a merge of:
As much as I would like to investigate the switch to 89652, I believe the difference
is ultimately meaningless for most buyers.
|
Agree all round, but especially those two Bionicle pieces - I've been selling
completed sets on eBay for years... I store those as the same part, and not once
has anyone mentioned a set came with the wrong ones!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 06:37 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 241 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
As a seller I'm absolutely not happy with removing variants that have been
in the catalog for quite some time.
A Minifigure head 3626b that shows in inventories, does sell.
An undetermined Minifigure head with a sellers note: "Blocked Open Stud /
Hollow Stud / Vented Stud" doesn't sell, for members don't know which
variant should be in a specific set anymore.
I would like to see a list of all items that are going to be merged.
And what about the alternate items in inventories that are going to be merged.
Removing all these items February 1th will result in a lot of inventory change
requests in an already very busy time.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Hurt | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 07:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 133 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I would love to have a catalog as detailed as possible (e.g. the bottom pin form
of a regular 1 x 2 plate, either filled or with a hole), while at the same time
have this level of detail optional for e.g. new users or user who don't care
about it.
Something like a "main item" (e.g. the current "undetermined type"
that, when you add it to a wanted list, is considered to be the same as all "sub
items". So they should be linked somehow. Like "add the undetermined
type" can be any of the "sub items" when you use the wanted list
for buying, or when you want a specific sub type, you just add the sub type to
your wanted list.
Just dreaming
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hurt writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
| |
I would love to have a catalog as detailed as possible (e.g. the bottom pin form
of a regular 1 x 2 plate, either filled or with a hole), while at the same time
have this level of detail optional for e.g. new users or user who don't care
about it.
Something like a "main item" (e.g. the current "undetermined type"
that, when you add it to a wanted list, is considered to be the same as all "sub
items". So they should be linked somehow. Like "add the undetermined
type" can be any of the "sub items" when you use the wanted list
for buying, or when you want a specific sub type, you just add the sub type to
your wanted list.
Just dreaming
|
Exactly, that is how it should be done.
Catalog = as detailed as possible
Items for sale = as detailed as you as a seller are willing to sort
Wanted items = as specific as you need the parts to be
All this needs is an extension of how you can specify parts in your store inventory
(how about a * or ? for starters) and an extension of how you can specify parts
in your wanted list. No need to touch the catalog at all.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | All this needs is an extension of how you can specify parts in your store inventory
(how about a * or ? for starters) and an extension of how you can specify parts
in your wanted list.
|
No no no!!!
Nobody should HAVE to know (and remember, this specific day) that "*"
will show every version: this is "Linux" spirit, people are more "Windows".
"3068" should bring the 99.997% market of 3068b.
Specific versions can be more difficult to find, as it's reserved to highly
specialized people who will have time to learn the special features.
Normal people don't have this time/energy: they work, have a family, etc.
AFOLs are the most often casual builders.
Site should be casual for them.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 12:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | All this needs is an extension of how you can specify parts in your store inventory
(how about a * or ? for starters) and an extension of how you can specify parts
in your wanted list.
|
No no no!!!
Nobody should HAVE to know (and remember, this specific day) that "*"
will show every version: this is "Linux" spirit, people are more "Windows".
"3068" should bring the 99.997% market of 3068b.
Specific versions can be more difficult to find, as it's reserved to highly
specialized people who will have time to learn the special features.
Normal people don't have this time/energy: they work, have a family, etc.
AFOLs are the most often casual builders.
Site should be casual for them.
|
You misread what I said. Not having to know about variants but still having the
ability to choose to care and specify would make it easier for casual users -
if the user interface is properly designed and has the proper defaults. With
the '*' and '?' I refer more to the backend, allowing these kind
of expressions in the database table that contains the wanted list items.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I support this approach
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 16:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Brilliant! That is exactly what would work! (Personally I would have the setting
for pros on all the time )
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 07:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 148 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I can definitely see the advantage of getting rid of variants that are not really
important such as the interior type "connections between studs", sprue
marks and similar. Even the 7 vs 9 teeth, as they give the same functional angles.
However, the grooved vs no groove tiles are visually quite different from the
side. That difference really shows if you have more than one next to each other
and that is how they are often used when building. Same thing with smooth slopes.
Do they just get put into the regular slopes now, as again there is a clear visual
difference between the two and again slopes tend to get placed next to each other
when building. Whereas differences inside the parts tend not to get noticed anywhere
near as much as the exterior surface differences. Even the 7 vs 9 tooth hinge
differences tend not to show when looking at a build.
I also worry about vintage vs new/reissue torsos where the same print has been
used where there are large price differences, even if sellers can highlight they
have the original in the text.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Brick_Qc | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 08:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I can definitely see the advantage of getting rid of variants that are not really
important such as the interior type "connections between studs", sprue
marks and similar. Even the 7 vs 9 teeth, as they give the same functional angles.
However, the grooved vs no groove tiles are visually quite different from the
side. That difference really shows if you have more than one next to each other
and that is how they are often used when building. Same thing with smooth slopes.
Do they just get put into the regular slopes now, as again there is a clear visual
difference between the two and again slopes tend to get placed next to each other
when building. Whereas differences inside the parts tend not to get noticed anywhere
near as much as the exterior surface differences. Even the 7 vs 9 tooth hinge
differences tend not to show when looking at a build.
I also worry about vintage vs new/reissue torsos where the same print has been
used where there are large price differences, even if sellers can highlight they
have the original in the text.
|
I'm a yes and no.
I'd suggest that variants visible from the exterior stay but selected
interior variants be merged.
In all, if you can't see it, drop it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | i support this approach |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | I agree! |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I can definitely see the advantage of getting rid of variants that are not really
important such as the interior type "connections between studs", sprue
marks and similar. Even the 7 vs 9 teeth, as they give the same functional angles.
However, the grooved vs no groove tiles are visually quite different from the
side. That difference really shows if you have more than one next to each other
and that is how they are often used when building. Same thing with smooth slopes.
Do they just get put into the regular slopes now, as again there is a clear visual
difference between the two and again slopes tend to get placed next to each other
when building. Whereas differences inside the parts tend not to get noticed anywhere
near as much as the exterior surface differences. Even the 7 vs 9 tooth hinge
differences tend not to show when looking at a build.
I also worry about vintage vs new/reissue torsos where the same print has been
used where there are large price differences, even if sellers can highlight they
have the original in the text.
|
Note that the "connections between studs" is not the functional difference,
it is just the most easily recognizable feature. The real difference is in the
angle of the slope and whether the hollow studs accept a bar connection.
The visual difference of the angle has not been enough for Bricklink to distinguish
a variant (see the 3x1 slope, which is not yet split), the functional difference
of the connectivity was.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Kenopolis | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 16:57 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I can definitely see the advantage of getting rid of variants that are not really
important such as the interior type "connections between studs", sprue
marks and similar. Even the 7 vs 9 teeth, as they give the same functional angles.
However, the grooved vs no groove tiles are visually quite different from the
side. That difference really shows if you have more than one next to each other
and that is how they are often used when building. Same thing with smooth slopes.
Do they just get put into the regular slopes now, as again there is a clear visual
difference between the two and again slopes tend to get placed next to each other
when building. Whereas differences inside the parts tend not to get noticed anywhere
near as much as the exterior surface differences. Even the 7 vs 9 tooth hinge
differences tend not to show when looking at a build.
I also worry about vintage vs new/reissue torsos where the same print has been
used where there are large price differences, even if sellers can highlight they
have the original in the text.
|
Note that the "connections between studs" is not the functional difference,
it is just the most easily recognizable feature. The real difference is in the
angle of the slope and whether the hollow studs accept a bar connection.
The visual difference of the angle has not been enough for Bricklink to distinguish
a variant (see the 3x1 slope, which is not yet split), the functional difference
of the connectivity was.
|
This is a good point.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2024 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 189 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I can definitely see the advantage of getting rid of variants that are not really
important such as the interior type "connections between studs", sprue
marks and similar. Even the 7 vs 9 teeth, as they give the same functional angles.
However, the grooved vs no groove tiles are visually quite different from the
side. That difference really shows if you have more than one next to each other
and that is how they are often used when building. Same thing with smooth slopes.
Do they just get put into the regular slopes now, as again there is a clear visual
difference between the two and again slopes tend to get placed next to each other
when building. Whereas differences inside the parts tend not to get noticed anywhere
near as much as the exterior surface differences. Even the 7 vs 9 tooth hinge
differences tend not to show when looking at a build.
|
Smooth slopes are very sparse in inventories, and even though we know there was
a part number dedicated to the "smooth" slope in certain cases, in other
cases we don't know if there was a difference intended, or whether the molds
were simply wearing out over time.
Because of the variability of smoothness, it's hard to tell sometimes whether
a set really had true smooth slopes, or whether the listings are accurate. And
there is nothing to prevent a seller from listing a smooth slope under the regular
entry either, especially during partout, because the non-smooth entries do not
specify they are not smooth.
| | I also worry about vintage vs new/reissue torsos where the same print has been
used where there are large price differences, even if sellers can highlight they
have the original in the text.
|
So I went and pulled all the meaningful price data for the classic vs reissue
torsos. The classic torsos were more expensive, but only by about 5% average.
Inidividually, they could go either way - but not to any extreme.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Lonely_Brick_OH | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 08:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 129 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The multiple items based upon the exact same part (variants) have been horrible
for many of our sorters. Most of them are not LEGO people and just help us sort
out the elements for fun. We have stopped many of the upload processes on different
items due to their being a slight difference in the material OR mixed bags of
product from different years.
We used to use the general element format and just mix them but then the catalog
removed a lot of those "could be whatever" elements and forced us into
what we call here "the cone thang' ". Lip, no lip, makes for a heck
of a sorting day that is for sure.
Hope you guys come up with a good solution and I totally understand the collectors
point of view as well.
Good luck and I hope it all works out.
We have around 100,000 elements not uploaded due to this exact issue.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 08:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Lonely_Brick_OH writes:
| | The multiple items based upon the exact same part (variants) have been horrible
for many of our sorters. Most of them are not LEGO people and just help us sort
out the elements for fun. We have stopped many of the upload processes on different
items due to their being a slight difference in the material OR mixed bags of
product from different years.
We used to use the general element format and just mix them but then the catalog
removed a lot of those "could be whatever" elements and forced us into
what we call here "the cone thang' ". Lip, no lip, makes for a heck
of a sorting day that is for sure.
Hope you guys come up with a good solution and I totally understand the collectors
point of view as well.
|
You sell mostly new parts. If you part out a set, the correct variant will be
uploaded. So you only have to sort, when there are alternate parts in the inventory,
which is shown during parting out.
Diana
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Reki_Lobsheek | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 09:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 113 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I personally applaud this idea. The amount of "variants" that don't
show any functional difference is becoming absurd IMO and I can only imagine
the nightmare for the bigger sellers when parting out sets these days, changing
a fully automated process into a hard manual labour.
Erikk
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 09:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 173 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This site is degenerating more and more into a random site. If you don't
care what part variants there are and where they were used, you might as well
use the inventory lists of the LEGO sets. That would be much quicker.
Then it won't make any difference what color a part is as long as it looks
similar to the original.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 10:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 120 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Dino writes:
| | This site is degenerating more and more into a random site. If you don't
care what part variants there are and where they were used, you might as well
use the inventory lists of the LEGO sets. That would be much quicker.
Then it won't make any difference what color a part is as long as it looks
similar to the original.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068a#T=P&C=11
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068b#T=P&C=11
6 months Sales, New.
Black Tile 2x2 WIHOUT groove, sold: 6
Black Tile 2x2 WIH groove, sold: 242531
The demand for this example of modern Tiles represents just... 99.997%
I think it's fine if BrickLink makes it easy for the VAST majority of the
market.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 11:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino writes:
| | This site is degenerating more and more into a random site. If you don't
care what part variants there are and where they were used, you might as well
use the inventory lists of the LEGO sets. That would be much quicker.
Then it won't make any difference what color a part is as long as it looks
similar to the original.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068a#T=P&C=11
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068b#T=P&C=11
6 months Sales, New.
Black Tile 2x2 WIHOUT groove, sold: 6
Black Tile 2x2 WIH groove, sold: 242531
The demand for this example of modern Tiles represents just... 99.997%
I think it's fine if BrickLink makes it easy for the VAST majority of the
market.
|
For used parts, the ratio drops to about 99%. But I guess that is expected for
such an old part where the modern one dominates the market because of the relative
scarcity of the older ones. Mixing them means it becomes much harder to find
the old ones if you really want them. Sure sellers could note in the comments
that they have them, but how much more do they have to be worth for the seller
to sort them, store them and label them if there is an easy option of mixing
them? If two variants of a part have similar value, I imagine sellers won't
go to the effort of saying what they have. Then buyers will need to place many
orders (or ask lots of questions, many of which will go unanswered) to find the
part variant they want if they want less common variants.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | For used parts, the ratio drops to about 99%. But I guess that is expected for
such an old part where the modern one dominates the market because of the relative
scarcity of the older ones. Mixing them means it becomes much harder to find
the old ones if you really want them. Sure sellers could note in the comments
that they have them, but how much more do they have to be worth for the seller
to sort them, store them and label them if there is an easy option of mixing
them?
|
See Russell's post I replied to, here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447174
... there should be a specific variant kept for those rare cases.
The normal entry would be a kind of "Undetermined".
Take the 4032; who really cares their specific style apart in RARE cases?
| | Then buyers will need to place many
orders (or ask lots of questions, many of which will go unanswered) to find the
part variant they want if they want less common variants.
|
Which is also already the case, see my example when someone sells 3068a instead
of 3068b
See also the various Price Guides for Brick 1x2 Trans- which are the most often
NOT the 3065 they should be...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 243 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
|
| |
For used parts, the ratio drops to about 99%. But I guess that is expected for
such an old part where the modern one dominates the market because of the relative
scarcity of the older ones. Mixing them means it becomes much harder to find
the old ones if you really want them. Sure sellers could note in the comments
that they have them, but how much more do they have to be worth for the seller
to sort them, store them and label them if there is an easy option of mixing
them? If two variants of a part have similar value, I imagine sellers won't
go to the effort of saying what they have. Then buyers will need to place many
orders (or ask lots of questions, many of which will go unanswered) to find the
part variant they want if they want less common variants.
|
Just to be clear, the last example on the Help page does NOT involve merging
/ deleting entries. It only means we rename and renumber 4 very common parts:
[p=3068b]
[p=3069b]
[p=3070b]
[p=3062b]
The phrases "with Groove" and "Open Stud" would be removed from
the Item Name, and the Item Number would drop the "b" suffix.
Folks, tiles with grooves are 50 years old now, and the round bricks with solid
stud are almost 45 years old. There is no reason to burden these entries with
terms like "groove".
This doesn't mean we will not recognize the groove / not groove on newer
parts like this:
Also, the spcific entries for the very old parts will remain as is:
These will NOT be merged.
The model we are following is that of other very common parts:
In theory, a seller could mix these under 3001 and it may create a problem. But
we haven't had complaints (in the last 15 years at least) of buyers ordering
3001 and getting 3001old.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
Just to be clear, the last example on the Help page does NOT involve merging
/ deleting entries. It only means we rename and renumber 4 very common parts:
[…]
Also, the spcific entries for the very old parts will remain as is:
[…]
These will NOT be merged. […]
|
Phew, that’s a relief!
Thanks for the clarification
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
Just to be clear, the last example on the Help page does NOT involve merging
/ deleting entries. It only means we rename and renumber 4 very common parts:
[…]
Also, the spcific entries for the very old parts will remain as is:
[…]
These will NOT be merged. […]
|
Phew, that’s a relief!
Thanks for the clarification
|
You fake brother! You didn't even understand what you read and I didn't
read!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:44 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thankyou this does clarify it a little more (for reference similar to the 1x1
cone with and without grooved version in a recent forum post if I’m understanding
correctly) where the 1 version is made an umbrella category for multiple versions
but the old one still exists for the old version. (This is more understandable
for things like the tiles with and without grooves but still dosnt feel right
for minifigure parts)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
That cone is something we need to fix. I plan to send out a notification and
then re-add the text "without groove" to the Item Name. That part is
not part of this group of changes, and is a different kind of groove anyway.
|
I propose “with(out) Top Stop Groove.”
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
That cone is something we need to fix. I plan to send out a notification and
then re-add the text "without groove" to the Item Name. That part is
not part of this group of changes, and is a different kind of groove anyway.
|
I propose “with(out) Top Stop Groove.”
|
-might be a cat*
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
| | I propose “with(out) Top Stop Groove.”
|
-might be a cat*
|
Me? Ou(ch)!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
| | I propose “with(out) Top Stop Groove.”
|
-might be a cat*
|
Me? Ou(ch)!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Just to be clear, the last example on the Help page does NOT involve merging
/ deleting entries. It only means we rename and renumber 4 very common parts:
|
Oh OK, great!
It's SylvainLS who lead me into error Chief!
| | The phrases "with Groove" and "Open Stud" would be removed from
the Item Name, and the Item Number would drop the "b" suffix.
|
Niiiiice!
| | Folks, tiles with grooves are 50 years old now, and the round bricks with solid
stud are almost 45 years old. There is no reason to burden these entries with
terms like "groove".
|
They're all old geezers ya know
| | In theory, a seller could mix these under 3001 and it may create a problem. But
we haven't had complaints (in the last 15 years at least) of buyers ordering
3001 and getting 3001old.
|
What about new 2780 Technic Pins? Trans-colored Brick 1x2 vs 3065? Jumpers 1x2?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And all those stupid versions of Bricks, like 2x2, 2x6, 2x8, 2x10???
We could've only 2x4s with a note like "Short square version", "The
longest!".
Joking
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
It's SylvainLS who lead me into error Chief!
|
*cough* Snitches get stitches! *cough*
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Just to be clear, the last example on the Help page does NOT involve merging
/ deleting entries. It only means we rename and renumber 4 very common parts:
|
Thank you for clarifying! That does sound better.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:11 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Thanks for the clarification, this makes much more sense now. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Graham. | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 15:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| What about part # 44567 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side with
(and without) Bottom Groove along with the other similar parts now being produced?
If I had the choice I would like to be able to list any part by its proper variant
OR list as undetermined type
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 15:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This approach makes more sense, making the most common part nowadays an umbrella
without suffixes and modified names..
Please be sure to email all sellers that their inventory might have to be manually
consolidated after these changes.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino writes:
| | This site is degenerating more and more into a random site. If you don't
care what part variants there are and where they were used, you might as well
use the inventory lists of the LEGO sets. That would be much quicker.
Then it won't make any difference what color a part is as long as it looks
similar to the original.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068a#T=P&C=11
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068b#T=P&C=11
6 months Sales, New.
Black Tile 2x2 WIHOUT groove, sold: 6
Black Tile 2x2 WIH groove, sold: 242531
The demand for this example of modern Tiles represents just... 99.997%
I think it's fine if BrickLink makes it easy for the VAST majority of the
market.
|
Would those 242531 people be just as happy receiving tiles without grooves? I
wouldn't be. Comparing the demand of two pieces shouldn't mean much of
anything as far as interchangeability goes.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino writes:
| | This site is degenerating more and more into a random site. If you don't
care what part variants there are and where they were used, you might as well
use the inventory lists of the LEGO sets. That would be much quicker.
Then it won't make any difference what color a part is as long as it looks
similar to the original.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068a#T=P&C=11
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068b#T=P&C=11
6 months Sales, New.
Black Tile 2x2 WIHOUT groove, sold: 6
Black Tile 2x2 WIH groove, sold: 242531
The demand for this example of modern Tiles represents just... 99.997%
I think it's fine if BrickLink makes it easy for the VAST majority of the
market.
|
Would those 242531 people be just as happy receiving tiles without grooves?
|
Absolutely not. That's why there is a separate entry for the old school parts.
Sellers should NOT use the generic entry for the old parts. That is asking for
trouble. But we shouldn't have to spell out "with groove" for every
modern tile on the site.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | But we shouldn't have to spell out "with groove" for every
modern tile on the site.
|
Great! Because this makes me sick
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Darth_Smithy | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 09:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I love it. It was getting a little crazy with variants.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 126 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hi,
I'm opposed to this. As one of the sellers who differentiates every part
carefully, I frequently get messages asking me to confirm which variant I'm
sending. Buyers do want period-accurate mold differences, including ones on that
list. I realize I could still list these differences in the comments, but the
problem is that they're presumably going to be removed from inventories,
so buyers and collectors won't know which sets are supposed to have which
variants.
Before continuing, I would like some clarification on a few points, please.
1) For the tiles with/without groove, does this mean that 3068b 2x2 Tile With
Groove will become 3068 2x2 Tile, but that 3068a 2x2 Tile Without Groove will
still be an entry? Or will 3068a be deleted and merged?
2) For Blocked and Vented studs, does this mean merging those two categories,
or does it mean merging Blocked, Vented, AND Hollow studs into one entry? Will
all non-solid stud minifig heads be considered the same? Or will Blocked/Vented
and Hollow still remain two separate entries?
3) If merging is happening to both X-shaped axle holes and Inside Side Supports,
does this mean that all 3 variants of 32064 will be considered the same part?
4) Will the Inside Side Supports cause 2454 and 46212 to be merged?
5) What will happen to 1x2 jumper plates? Will 3794a, 3794b, and 15573 all be
merged into one entry? I think that's absolutely ridiculous if so, and I
would be very annoyed if I received 15573 in a used set from the '90s. Most
collectors would.
Some of these entries I understand changing, like the Smooth Slopes. For others,
though, I think it is very irresponsible to collectors to change the inventory.
It's one thing to make 3068b the default 3068, for example, but a totally
different thing to eliminate the entry for 3068a and remove the differentiation
in set inventories. And that goes for most of these variants. The variants are
there so that collectors can have a more accurate set and buyers can find period-accurate
parts. Like I said, I receive a lot of these orders and I know how detail-oriented
Lego collectors can be.
-Jordy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:54 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | 1) For the tiles with/without groove, does this mean that 3068b 2x2 Tile With
Groove will become 3068 2x2 Tile, but that 3068a 2x2 Tile Without Groove will
still be an entry? Or will 3068a be deleted and merged?
|
As what I understood...
3068 will be the Tile 2x2 (whatever version you have, without groove in 99.99999999%
of the cases).
3068a may stay 3068a or become 3068old, they may change (or not) the reference
for those.
There are 2 solutions:
1) They'll consider taht 3068b as the norm, and all 3068b will become 3068.
But 3068a will stay as the are (or renamed 3068old).
2) Or they'll ask you to chose a version for your Tiles 2x2, then you'll
pick 3068, or separate majority in 3068 and some in 3068a/3068old.
But I'd say first solution is the easiest?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
As what I understood...
3068 will be the Tile 2x2 (whatever version you have, without groove in 99.99999999%
of the cases).
3068a may stay 3068a or become 3068old, they may change (or not) the reference
for those.[…]
|
I wished to understand it this way too but the help page says the following and
it’s valid for every entry:
“The following types of variants will no longer be accepted into the catalog
and current examples of these variants will be merged (effectively deleted).”
Also, in follow-up messages, Russell says you _already_ need to use the notes
anyway. Meaning there won’t be any other way than the notes to know the rare
variations.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
As what I understood...
3068 will be the Tile 2x2 (whatever version you have, without groove in 99.99999999%
of the cases).
3068a may stay 3068a or become 3068old, they may change (or not) the reference
for those.[…]
|
I wished to understand it this way too but the help page says the following and
it’s valid for every entry:
“The following types of variants will no longer be accepted into the catalog
and current examples of these variants will be merged (effectively deleted).”
Also, in follow-up messages, Russell says you _already_ need to use the notes
anyway. Meaning there won’t be any other way than the notes to know the rare
variations.
|
Ah OK, then Even better!
Sorry TL&DR
I'll make an effort (Note) for variants worth them.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | 2) For Blocked and Vented studs, does this mean merging those two categories,
or does it mean merging Blocked, Vented, AND Hollow studs into one entry? Will
all non-solid stud minifig heads be considered the same? Or will Blocked/Vented
and Hollow still remain two separate entries?
|
That's the idea; majority of buyers (90% ?) just want this Male Pirate
Head with Beard.
Some will take the one with a Moustache if they can't find the other
one
In short, and IMO and seeing/meeting/talking with clients for 16 years, normal
people absolutely don't care for anything else about any hypothetic version.
We in Forum aren't normal people, we're specialists.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
We in Forum aren't normal people, we're
|
🫣
😅
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
We in Forum aren't normal people, we're
|
🫣
😅
|
Yes, what?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
We in Forum aren't normal people, we're
|
🫣
😅
|
Yes, what?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Hi,
I'm opposed to this. As one of the sellers who differentiates every part
carefully, I frequently get messages asking me to confirm which variant I'm
sending. Buyers do want period-accurate mold differences, including ones on that
list. I realize I could still list these differences in the comments, but the
problem is that they're presumably going to be removed from inventories,
so buyers and collectors won't know which sets are supposed to have which
variants.
|
For me its the opposite problem in that I rarely receive messages about variants
prior to purchase but then later made accountable for apparently sending the
wrong minor variant despite stating in my store that I do not separate minor
variants and that it best to check/ask?
Therefore essentially I'm almost forced to separate and sort what I can just
to cover myself in case a buyer overlooks my store terms and wants to still hold
me accountable?
I also have little doubt there are sometimes the odd opportunistic buyers out
there that know the system and use the minor variant complaint as an easy way
of getting what they want for free regardless of whether they care about the
variant received or not!
So I ask, is it really fair that all sellers should be forced into sorting variants
as currently there is not really a reliable safe way of opting out!?
On the plus side if everyone is forced to merge their variants any sellers like
yourself who continue describing the exact variant in the comments, I think if
anything will only give you an edge over other sellers! I expect most sellers
will conform to the new changes shrinking the existing variant selling competition
for you!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 197 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Hi,
I'm opposed to this. As one of the sellers who differentiates every part
carefully, I frequently get messages asking me to confirm which variant I'm
sending. Buyers do want period-accurate mold differences, including ones on that
list. I realize I could still list these differences in the comments, but the
problem is that they're presumably going to be removed from inventories,
so buyers and collectors won't know which sets are supposed to have which
variants.
|
In general, nothing will change. This is simply a correction of a few minor variants.
The vast majority of variants will remain untouched and supported fully as we
move forward.
When a merge happens, the resulting parts will still be in inventories. A variant
merge is actually a minimally disruptive process where the distinction between
the two items is lost. But the inventories, wanted lists, sales records and price
guide will be brought forward.
| | Before continuing, I would like some clarification on a few points, please.
1) For the tiles with/without groove, does this mean that 3068b 2x2 Tile With
Groove will become 3068 2x2 Tile, but that 3068a 2x2 Tile Without Groove will
still be an entry?
|
Yes.
| | Or will 3068a be deleted and merged?
|
No. For the 4 basic parts represented by the last example on the Help page, no
merges will take place, just a renaming and renumbering of the current "b"
variant.
| | 2) For Blocked and Vented studs, does this mean merging those two categories,
or does it mean merging Blocked, Vented, AND Hollow studs into one entry? Will
all non-solid stud minifig heads be considered the same? Or will Blocked/Vented
and Hollow still remain two separate entries?
|
All Blocked and Vented studs will be merged to Hollow, but we may or may not
retain the term "Hollow". In either case, the solid stud heads will remain
unchanged, but we will add them to more inventories and create more minifigures
to fill out the collection.
| | 3) If merging is happening to both X-shaped axle holes and Inside Side Supports,
does this mean that all 3 variants of 32064 will be considered the same part?
|
Yes. But for the record, the 32064 entry currently is an umbrella entry anyway.
If you just want the the modern version, there is no entry on BrickLink that
will guarantee that.
[p=32064b]
[p=32064c]
| | 4) Will the Inside Side Supports cause 2454 and 46212 to be merged?
|
46212 is the transparent version of 2454. There is no reason they should be split
and they will be merged.
[p=46212]
| | 5) What will happen to 1x2 jumper plates? Will 3794a, 3794b, and 15573 all be
merged into one entry? I think that's absolutely ridiculous if so, and I
would be very annoyed if I received 15573 in a used set from the '90s. Most
collectors would.
|
We're not even thinking of touching the jumpers. They are all considered
first class cosmetic variants. Even the stud holders on the 15573 are considered
cosmetic due to uses like:
| | Some of these entries I understand changing, like the Smooth Slopes. For others,
though, I think it is very irresponsible to collectors to change the inventory.
It's one thing to make 3068b the default 3068, for example, but a totally
different thing to eliminate the entry for 3068a and remove the differentiation
in set inventories. And that goes for most of these variants. The variants are
there so that collectors can have a more accurate set and buyers can find period-accurate
parts. Like I said, I receive a lot of these orders and I know how detail-oriented
Lego collectors can be.
|
In general, I agree. And in general, we aren't changing BrickLink's commitment
to variants. But I would ask, for example - what do you feel about the hinges
with teeth? Do you really think it matters?
It can only matter when someone is being super fussy about period variants, but
the reality is that BrickLink does not recognize most variants. Getting the exact
period element is not something BrickLink ever supported. Take, for example,
the solid and hollow pins on the bottom of 1 x X plates and bricks. This is actually
one of my favorites, and I very much appreciate the correct parts. But BrickLink
has never and likely will never distinguish to such a degree, because it's
impractical.
And the hinges with teeth are impractical. Academically they are interesting,
but they function exactly the same, and who uses hinges for cosmetic reasons?
The only use case is collectors wanting to fill out an old set, and we are so
very far from being able to provide that level of distinction on BrickLink.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 15:07 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 16:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| First, thank you very much for the thorough and clear response. I really appreciate
it, and I feel a bit better about the proposed changes. I have just a few more
things to say, and thanks for your attention.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | No. For the 4 basic parts represented by the last example on the Help page, no
merges will take place, just a renaming and renumbering of the current "b"
variant.
|
That's a relief!
| | We're not even thinking of touching the jumpers. They are all considered
first class cosmetic variants. Even the stud holders on the 15573 are considered
cosmetic due to uses like:
|
And an even bigger relief!
| | Yes. But for the record, the 32064 entry currently is an umbrella entry anyway.
If you just want the the modern version, there is no entry on BrickLink that
will guarantee that.
|
To be clear, for entries like this that will be merged, there will be a note
added, correct? A note to clearly say that there are multiple variants of the
part, some with different axle holes and some with inside side supports?
| | In general, I agree. And in general, we aren't changing BrickLink's commitment
to variants. But I would ask, for example - what do you feel about the hinges
with teeth? Do you really think it matters?
|
Functionally? No. For MOCs? No. For the purpose of set inventories? Yes. As a
collector and a buyer, I would NOT want to receive a used set from 2010 with
7-tooth hinges.
| | It can only matter when someone is being super fussy about period variants, but
the reality is that BrickLink does not recognize most variants. Getting the exact
period element is not something BrickLink ever supported. Take, for example,
the solid and hollow pins on the bottom of 1 x X plates and bricks. This is actually
one of my favorites, and I very much appreciate the correct parts. But BrickLink
has never and likely will never distinguish to such a degree, because it's
impractical.
And the hinges with teeth are impractical. Academically they are interesting,
but they function exactly the same, and who uses hinges for cosmetic reasons?
The only use case is collectors wanting to fill out an old set, and we are so
very far from being able to provide that level of distinction on BrickLink.
|
I recognize that this is a very good point. Bricklink doesn't support fully
period-accurate inventories, and can't in any practical way. As a detail-oriented
person, though, I've always appreciated that the catalog tries to differentiate
down to the minutiae. Even though most of the language I'm hearing is trying
to minimize the effect that this will have on inventories, I believe that the
changes will make things significantly more difficult and frustrating for many
collectors.
Lastly, please recognize that for some of us sellers, these proposed changes
will directly hurt our bottom line. I've put a lot of time and money into
investing in certain variants that can be hard to find, and I have suppliers
that specifically search bulk for some of these soon-to-be-deleted variants,
which I pay a premium for. For example, over the years I've put a lot of
resources into having a huge stock of 4032b. It's been a best-selling part
for me for years, and if it's merged with 4032, all that time and money will
be wasted -- I know I can differentiate them with comments, but I also know
that my sales will drop drastically due to the part not being separated in set
inventories. Another example is part 553a. I don't know if that one's
going away, but I've invested a lot in having those verified parts, separate
from 553b and 553c, because buyers want them for certain old sets. Same for vintage
46212 in non-transparent colors. Same for certain blocked-open heads. Same for
3747a.
I estimate that these changes will cost me hundreds of dollars in sales every
month, not to mention all the work I've done in the past being negated. Please
understand that this is very, very frustrating and disheartening.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| though most of the language I'm hearing is trying
| | to minimize the effect that this will have on inventories, I believe that the
changes will make things significantly more difficult and frustrating for many
collectors.
Lastly, please recognize that for some of us sellers, these proposed changes
will directly hurt our bottom line. I've put a lot of time and money into
investing in certain variants that can be hard to find, and I have suppliers
that specifically search bulk for some of these soon-to-be-deleted variants,
which I pay a premium for. For example, over the years I've put a lot of
resources into having a huge stock of 4032b. It's been a best-selling part
for me for years, and if it's merged with 4032, all that time and money will
be wasted -- I know I can differentiate them with comments, but I also know
that my sales will drop drastically due to the part not being separated in set
inventories. Another example is part 553a. I don't know if that one's
going away, but I've invested a lot in having those verified parts, separate
from 553b and 553c, because buyers want them for certain old sets. Same for vintage
46212 in non-transparent colors. Same for certain blocked-open heads. Same for
3747a.
I estimate that these changes will cost me hundreds of dollars in sales every
month, not to mention all the work I've done in the past being negated. Please
understand that this is very, very frustrating and disheartening.
|
in addition to that, with blocked versus hollow heads. I've spent lots of
money to get say blocked instead of hollow for certain heads to get correct versions
so if they are combined I'm also out lots of money. if this change didn't
affect minifigure parts it would be much better. hollow versus blocked are iconic
to the point I even have label some storage drawers as such
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 19:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | [bla] to the point I even have label some storage drawers as such
|
No kidding!?
So you've separated Blocked and Hollow... but all the 247 Minifigure Heads
(of the same version) are mixed in the same drawer???
You Nubsy are really some different kind of what we usually encounter
on Earth.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 19:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | [bla] to the point I even have label some storage drawers as such
|
No kidding!?
So you've separated Blocked and Hollow... but all the 247 Minifigure Heads
(of the same version) are mixed in the same drawer???
You Nubsy are really some different kind of what we usually encounter
on Earth.
|
It is the first stage of sorting. from there, it makes it easier to
find the heads (prior to using brickognize) as I would just search "yellow
head blocked (search terms)" for each one and it went super fast after sorting
by print
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 20:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 142 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | though most of the language I'm hearing is trying
| | to minimize the effect that this will have on inventories, I believe that the
changes will make things significantly more difficult and frustrating for many
collectors.
Lastly, please recognize that for some of us sellers, these proposed changes
will directly hurt our bottom line. I've put a lot of time and money into
investing in certain variants that can be hard to find, and I have suppliers
that specifically search bulk for some of these soon-to-be-deleted variants,
which I pay a premium for. For example, over the years I've put a lot of
resources into having a huge stock of 4032b. It's been a best-selling part
for me for years, and if it's merged with 4032, all that time and money will
be wasted -- I know I can differentiate them with comments, but I also know
that my sales will drop drastically due to the part not being separated in set
inventories. Another example is part 553a. I don't know if that one's
going away, but I've invested a lot in having those verified parts, separate
from 553b and 553c, because buyers want them for certain old sets. Same for vintage
46212 in non-transparent colors. Same for certain blocked-open heads. Same for
3747a.
I estimate that these changes will cost me hundreds of dollars in sales every
month, not to mention all the work I've done in the past being negated. Please
understand that this is very, very frustrating and disheartening.
|
in addition to that, with blocked versus hollow heads. I've spent lots of
money to get say blocked instead of hollow for certain heads to get correct versions
so if they are combined I'm also out lots of money. if this change didn't
affect minifigure parts it would be much better. hollow versus blocked are iconic
to the point I even have label some storage drawers as such
|
If you already sort a particular variant, simply add the descriptor to your listing
notes for each item. You can still sell them even though they are not distinguished
in the catalog. No need to lose money.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 20:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | though most of the language I'm hearing is trying
| | to minimize the effect that this will have on inventories, I believe that the
changes will make things significantly more difficult and frustrating for many
collectors.
Lastly, please recognize that for some of us sellers, these proposed changes
will directly hurt our bottom line. I've put a lot of time and money into
investing in certain variants that can be hard to find, and I have suppliers
that specifically search bulk for some of these soon-to-be-deleted variants,
which I pay a premium for. For example, over the years I've put a lot of
resources into having a huge stock of 4032b. It's been a best-selling part
for me for years, and if it's merged with 4032, all that time and money will
be wasted -- I know I can differentiate them with comments, but I also know
that my sales will drop drastically due to the part not being separated in set
inventories. Another example is part 553a. I don't know if that one's
going away, but I've invested a lot in having those verified parts, separate
from 553b and 553c, because buyers want them for certain old sets. Same for vintage
46212 in non-transparent colors. Same for certain blocked-open heads. Same for
3747a.
I estimate that these changes will cost me hundreds of dollars in sales every
month, not to mention all the work I've done in the past being negated. Please
understand that this is very, very frustrating and disheartening.
|
in addition to that, with blocked versus hollow heads. I've spent lots of
money to get say blocked instead of hollow for certain heads to get correct versions
so if they are combined I'm also out lots of money. if this change didn't
affect minifigure parts it would be much better. hollow versus blocked are iconic
to the point I even have label some storage drawers as such
|
If you already sort a particular variant, simply add the descriptor to your listing
notes for each item. You can still sell them even though they are not distinguished
in the catalogue. No need to lose money.
|
yes but if all the hollow and blocked are combined then ones that use to require
the rarer version of that head (whether blocked or hollow) now can use any
so if I spent say 3x on a certain head to get a specific variant so I could list
that figure to be exactly as it was in the set and bought say 1000 of those rarer
heads, then now that the listing in the figure inventory won't care on the
head version then I wasted money. (since not every figure is like the Star Wars
ones that had either blocked or hollow some are specifically blocked and never
have been hollow) for example, if I wanted to build up some Minifigures that
use which in qty is about 80 cents to $1 (cad) and say I bought
1000 of them for a certain figure that requires specifically the blocked version.
then when it's combined i wasted the money on the blocked version as now
I could have simply used the cheaper version instead which you
can get qty of for about 33 cents (cad). yes I can try to sell them off to get
some of my money back but as people will no longer care to the same point about
getting a specific version since no inventory will specify if it is blocked or
hollow then demand and prices will fall
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 20:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | though most of the language I'm hearing is trying
| | to minimize the effect that this will have on inventories, I believe that the
changes will make things significantly more difficult and frustrating for many
collectors.
Lastly, please recognize that for some of us sellers, these proposed changes
will directly hurt our bottom line. I've put a lot of time and money into
investing in certain variants that can be hard to find, and I have suppliers
that specifically search bulk for some of these soon-to-be-deleted variants,
which I pay a premium for. For example, over the years I've put a lot of
resources into having a huge stock of 4032b. It's been a best-selling part
for me for years, and if it's merged with 4032, all that time and money will
be wasted -- I know I can differentiate them with comments, but I also know
that my sales will drop drastically due to the part not being separated in set
inventories. Another example is part 553a. I don't know if that one's
going away, but I've invested a lot in having those verified parts, separate
from 553b and 553c, because buyers want them for certain old sets. Same for vintage
46212 in non-transparent colors. Same for certain blocked-open heads. Same for
3747a.
I estimate that these changes will cost me hundreds of dollars in sales every
month, not to mention all the work I've done in the past being negated. Please
understand that this is very, very frustrating and disheartening.
|
in addition to that, with blocked versus hollow heads. I've spent lots of
money to get say blocked instead of hollow for certain heads to get correct versions
so if they are combined I'm also out lots of money. if this change didn't
affect minifigure parts it would be much better. hollow versus blocked are iconic
to the point I even have label some storage drawers as such
|
If you already sort a particular variant, simply add the descriptor to your listing
notes for each item. You can still sell them even though they are not distinguished
in the catalogue. No need to lose money.
|
yes but if all the hollow and blocked are combined then ones that use to require
the rarer version of that head (whether blocked or hollow) now can use any
so if I spent say 3x on a certain head to get a specific variant so I could list
that figure to be exactly as it was in the set and bought say 1000 of those rarer
heads, then now that the listing in the figure inventory won't care on the
head version then I wasted money. (since not every figure is like the Star Wars
ones that had either blocked or hollow some are specifically blocked and never
have been hollow) for example, if I wanted to build up some Minifigures that
use which in qty is about 80 cents to $1 (cad) and say I bought
1000 of them for a certain figure that requires specifically the blocked version.
then when it's combined i wasted the money on the blocked version as now
I could have simply used the cheaper version instead which you
can get qty of for about 33 cents (cad). yes I can try to sell them off to get
some of my money back but as people will no longer care to the same point about
getting a specific version since no inventory will specify if it is blocked or
hollow then demand and prices will fall
|
but then again I've badly misunderstood things in the past so I might be
mistaken about some stuff
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 02:05 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
but as people will no longer care to the same point about
getting a specific version since no inventory will specify if it is blocked or
hollow then demand and prices will fall
|
Then that means people never really cared about the variant. Their want(ed list)s
are guided by an unnecessary or wrong distinction in inventories.
Even when there’s a note about variant head types, a minifig can only have one
type of head in its inventory, and it’s generally the first one found, but many
came with different types of head.
So the inventories are automatically putting one variant above the other, making
people believe that one variant is the “real” one while the other is a later,
somewhat inferior, variation. But there’s no “right” or “better” variant.
Yes, you profited from it, especially as the older and often rarer variant is
the one in the inventories (first one found), but the distinction is artificial.
TL;DR: The distinction and price difference is a lie! Are you comfortable making
money on a lie? 😱 (Joking… though there’s a bit of truth there )
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 02:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
but as people will no longer care to the same point about
getting a specific version since no inventory will specify if it is blocked or
hollow then demand and prices will fall
|
Then that means people never really cared about the variant. Their want(ed list)s
are guided by an unnecessary or wrong distinction in inventories.
|
Not really as if people don’t know I’m the first place then they can’t choice.
So if they know of a variant they can choice it but if they never knew and they
don’t get it it’s not because they don’t want it per say but rather they don’t
know of it.
| | Even when there’s a note about variant head types, a minifig can only have one
type of head in its inventory, and it’s generally the first one found, but many
came with different types of head.
So the inventories are automatically putting one variant above the other, making
people believe that one variant is the “real” one while the other is a later,
somewhat inferior, variation. But there’s no “right” or “better” variant.
Yes, you profited from it, especially as the older and often rarer variant is
the one in the inventories (first one found), but the distinction is artificial.
|
But that only applies to some. There are other figures which don’t use both versions
but instead just 1
| | TL;DR: The distinction and price difference is a lie! Are you comfortable making
money on a lie? 😱 (Joking… though there’s a bit of truth there )
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 02:34 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
| | Then that means people never really cared about the variant. Their want(ed list)s
are guided by an unnecessary or wrong distinction in inventories.
|
Not really as if people don’t know I’m the first place then they can’t choice.
|
*in the first place, *choose 
My guess is there’ll be a note about the part existing with hollow/blocked/vented
variants. So people would know there’s variants.
There could also be notes in minifigs to say which head variant was found.
| | […]
But that only applies to some.
|
Many enough.
| | There are other figures which don’t use both versions
but instead just 1
|
Two cases:
1. The print is uncommon, and those minifigures would be rare, and you can have
a note of the variant on the minifig.
2. The print is common, and is the variant stud such a problem?
As said above, if there’s a note in the minifig, people will know what to ask
if they really want the right variant. And is it really different from using
a very modern 1x4 brick instead of a bit older but still modern 1x4 brick? Sure,
if you want to restore a 1980’s set, you don’t want 1x4 brick with holes in the
underside pins, you also would want the older Blue and not the post-2004 Blue…
but can you see and do you care about the difference between two White 1x4 brick
with full underside pins, one made in 1980 and one made in 1995¹?
¹ Or something. I don’t know the dates for hollow pins.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 02:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
| | Then that means people never really cared about the variant. Their want(ed list)s
are guided by an unnecessary or wrong distinction in inventories.
|
Not really as if people don’t know I’m the first place then they can’t choice.
|
*in the first place, *choose
My guess is there’ll be a note about the part existing with hollow/blocked/vented
variants. So people would know there’s variants.
There could also be notes in minifigs to say which head variant was found.
| | […]
But that only applies to some.
|
Many enough.
|
Can’t say I’ve ever heard that combination of words before
| |
| | There are other figures which don’t use both versions
but instead just 1
|
Two cases:
1. The print is uncommon, and those minifigures would be rare, and you can have
a note of the variant on the minifig.
2. The print is common, and is the variant stud such a problem?
As said above, if there’s a note in the minifig, people will know what to ask
if they really want the right variant. And is it really different from using
a very modern 1x4 brick instead of a bit older but still modern 1x4 brick? Sure,
if you want to restore a 1980’s set, you don’t want 1x4 brick with holes in the
underside pins, you also would want the older Blue and not the post-2004 Blue…
but can you see and do you care about the difference between two White 1x4 brick
with full underside pins, one made in 1980 and one made in 1995¹?
¹ Or something. I don’t know the dates for hollow pins.
|
I don’t know how to explain it as well as others but it just feels wrong specifically
for minifigure parts to combine them. I kinda get it for things like the sprue
on the chair but for something iconic like the different molds for minifigure
heads is just something that shouldnt change as differentiating between hollow
and blocked is important
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 02:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
Can’t say I’ve ever heard that combination of words before
|
I was going to say “consider it my contribution to the English language” but
it appears I’m not the first one to try it: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/many-enough.2763768/
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 03:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
🧜♂️
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 05:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| |
I don’t know how to explain it as well as others but it just feels wrong specifically
for minifigure parts to combine them. I kinda get it for things like the sprue
on the chair but for something iconic like the different molds for minifigure
heads is just something that shouldnt change as differentiating between hollow
and blocked is important
|
It's only considered to be important because Bricklinks catalog has led us
to believe its important all these years. Granted there would have always been
a market for variants regardless of whether only one or two entries were initially
created/separated because people like to collect these things but the differences
are for the most part so insignificant that we're actually hindering the
functionality of the whole site for "every single user!" for the sake
of catering for a small handful of collectors who can still go about collecting
these parts in other ways with the help of sellers who are willing to provide
this service for them
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | Then that means people never really cared about the variant. Their want(ed list)s
are guided by an unnecessary or wrong distinction in inventories.
Even when there’s a note about variant head types, a minifig can only have one
type of head in its inventory, and it’s generally the first one found, but many
came with different types of head.
So the inventories are automatically putting one variant above the other, making
people believe that one variant is the “real” one while the other is a later,
somewhat inferior, variation. But there’s no “right” or “better” variant.
Yes, you profited from it, especially as the older and often rarer variant is
the one in the inventories (first one found), but the distinction is artificial.
TL;DR: The distinction and price difference is a lie! Are you comfortable making
money on a lie? 😱 (Joking… though there’s a bit of truth there )
|
I'm sorry, but that logic is completely circular and absolutely ridiculous.
People care about the variant BECAUSE it's distinguished in the catalog.
It's no more "artificial" than the distinction between Light Gray
and Light Bluish Gray, or between the same torso with two slightly different
prints. Most casual buyers wouldn't notice either of those differences either.
But the differences are factual, and it's factual that they were released
in different sets at different time periods. Finding a hollow-stud head on a
minifigure from 2001 is objectively incorrect. Do people care about the head
stud type? Not technically, because it makes no difference for display or play.
Do collectors care about having period-correct parts for their sets? Absolutely.
If you remove the distinction, of course most buyers will no longer care, BECAUSE
the distinction has been removed. That doesn't prove your point; it proves
that whatever is listed in the inventory is believed to be correct, and buyers
tend to want the correct parts. If you change what is defined as "correct,"
of course it will change many buyers' preferences. But it doesn't change
the objective fact that a certain mold variation was not produced during a certain
time period or in any original copies of a certain minifigure or set. It just
obscures those minor differences and pretends they don't exist, which isn't
the same thing at all. Whether or not people "care" is completely irrelevant.
They bought the variants because there's evidence that they are period-correct,
and they CARE about being CORRECT.
Am I comfortable making more on a Light Gray part than a Light Bluish Gray part?
Absolutely. Am I comfortable making more on a 3942b than a 3942c? Absolutely.
It's not a "lie" -- it's precision. But evidently, Bricklink
wants to be less precise.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | People care about the variant BECAUSE it's distinguished in the catalog.
It's no more "artificial" than the distinction between Light Gray
and Light Bluish Gray
|
Exactly: maybe 0.00001% of my orders items are for Light Gray.
The remaining (for this Gray) is for Light Bluish Gray.
BrickLink simplifies the approach for 99% of the buyers, while still making possible
for the specialized specialists.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | People care about the variant BECAUSE it's distinguished in the catalog.
It's no more "artificial" than the distinction between Light Gray
and Light Bluish Gray
|
Exactly: maybe 0.00001% of my orders items are for Light Gray.
The remaining (for this Gray) is for Light Bluish Gray.
BrickLink simplifies the approach for 99% of the buyers, while still making possible
for the specialized specialists.
|
How much light gray do you have listed tho? I sell a fair amount of light gray
since I have a lot listed but you only have like 97 light gray lots and 629 light
bluish gray so your going to sell significantly less (also as new light gray
sells much slower the used light gray but you don’t really sell used )
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | People care about the variant BECAUSE it's distinguished in the catalog.
It's no more "artificial" than the distinction between Light Gray
and Light Bluish Gray
|
Exactly: maybe 0.00001% of my orders items are for Light Gray.
The remaining (for this Gray) is for Light Bluish Gray.
BrickLink simplifies the approach for 99% of the buyers, while still making possible
for the specialized specialists.
|
That's... really weird. Proportionally to my stock, I easily sell more Light
Gray than Light Bluish Gray (though more LBG in absolute numbers, since far more
parts exist in that color). Though to be fair, I specifically serve a lot of
buyers looking for vintage parts, vintage colors, completing vintage sets, etc,
since I have one of the biggest inventories of vintage parts in the country.
In this case, "simplification" means "being less accurate." Many
buyers won't know they're getting period-incorrect parts. That's
a very different thing.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | People care about the variant BECAUSE it's distinguished in the catalog.
It's no more "artificial" than the distinction between Light Gray
and Light Bluish Gray
|
Exactly: maybe 0.00001% of my orders items are for Light Gray.
The remaining (for this Gray) is for Light Bluish Gray.
BrickLink simplifies the approach for 99% of the buyers, while still making possible
for the specialized specialists.
|
That's... really weird. Proportionally to my stock, I easily sell more Light
Gray than Light Bluish Gray
|
If you've a niche shop, that's normal many of your buyers come here for
this.
I've a generic shop, and to reply to Nubs, sure I don't have many Light
Grey (I must admit), because it's very very low in demand here according
our stats.
(unfortunately, as LG can be the best color in some cases!)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | If you've a niche shop, that's normal many of your buyers come here for
this.
I've a generic shop, and to reply to Nubs, sure I don't have many Light
Grey (I must admit), because it's very very low in demand here according
our stats.
(unfortunately, as LG can be the best color in some cases!)
|
I don't have a niche shop, I have one of the top 5 most diverse inventories
in the USA and am one of the largest used-parts shops in the country.
Yes, based on various sources, vintage parts are in higher demand in the USA
than in Europe. Regardless, your store is obviously not a benchmark for vintage
colors.
Approximately 40% of my orders contain at least one part in Light Gray, Dark
Gray, Brown, or Old Dark Red.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I don't have a niche shop, I have one of the top 5 most diverse inventories
in the USA and am one of the largest used-parts shops in the country.
|
Sorry - confused with replies to oldGreyBricks not sure about the name...
But anyway you've a niche; having a lot of lots (and relatively small quantity)
is a niche in itself. See our reference, Paulo's shop
I mean, it's my humble opinion on this subject.
| | Approximately 40% of my orders contain at least one part in Light Gray, Dark
Gray, Brown, or Old Dark Red.
|
I'm far far those numbers, I'd say maybe 1 order per month?
But again - I'm not sure the current change will badly affect you.
At the contrary; everything's making BrickLink easier will bring a bigger
"market" here, which is good for all of us.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | I don't have a niche shop, I have one of the top 5 most diverse inventories
in the USA and am one of the largest used-parts shops in the country.
|
Sorry - confused with replies to oldGreyBricks not sure about the name...
But anyway you've a niche; having a lot of lots (and relatively small quantity)
is a niche in itself. See our reference, Paulo's shop
I mean, it's my humble opinion on this subject.
| | Approximately 40% of my orders contain at least one part in Light Gray, Dark
Gray, Brown, or Old Dark Red.
|
I'm far far those numbers, I'd say maybe 1 order per month?
But again - I'm not sure the current change will badly affect you.
At the contrary; everything's making BrickLink easier will bring a bigger
"market" here, which is good for all of us.
|
Sounds good! To be clear, I think you've got a great store and respect your
opinion, even if mine is a little different.
You know what actually made the biggest difference in my sales in years? Bricklink
shutting down due to the ransom attempt in November. Ever since BL reopened,
I literally haven't had a SINGLE slow day. Not even Christmas or New Year's.
My sales have gone up approximately 30% just since November 8. So even if these
changes lose me some sales, in balance, they'll still be much better than
they were pre-hack
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 14:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | My sales have gone up approximately 30% just since November 8.
|
Now we know who's the hacker!!!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | People care about the variant BECAUSE it's distinguished in the catalog.
It's no more "artificial" than the distinction between Light Gray
and Light Bluish Gray
|
Exactly: maybe 0.00001% of my orders items are for Light Gray.
The remaining (for this Gray) is for Light Bluish Gray.
BrickLink simplifies the approach for 99% of the buyers, while still making possible
for the specialized specialists.
|
That's... really weird. Proportionally to my stock, I easily sell more Light
Gray than Light Bluish Gray
|
If you've a niche shop, that's normal many of your buyers come here for
this.
I've a generic shop, and to reply to Nubs, sure I don't have many Light
Grey (I must admit), because it's very very low in demand here according
our stats.
|
Good demand over here
| | (unfortunately, as LG can be the best color in some cases!)
|
(Light bluish gray looks better in most cases! )
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | Then that means people never really cared about the variant. Their want(ed list)s
are guided by an unnecessary or wrong distinction in inventories.
Even when there’s a note about variant head types, a minifig can only have one
type of head in its inventory, and it’s generally the first one found, but many
came with different types of head.
So the inventories are automatically putting one variant above the other, making
people believe that one variant is the “real” one while the other is a later,
somewhat inferior, variation. But there’s no “right” or “better” variant.
Yes, you profited from it, especially as the older and often rarer variant is
the one in the inventories (first one found), but the distinction is artificial.
TL;DR: The distinction and price difference is a lie! Are you comfortable making
money on a lie? 😱 (Joking… though there’s a bit of truth there )
|
I'm sorry, but that logic is completely circular and absolutely ridiculous.
People care about the variant BECAUSE it's distinguished in the catalog.
It's no more "artificial" than the distinction between Light Gray
and Light Bluish Gray, or between the same torso with two slightly different
prints. Most casual buyers wouldn't notice either of those differences either.
But the differences are factual, and it's factual that they were released
in different sets at different time periods. Finding a hollow-stud head on a
minifigure from 2001 is objectively incorrect. Do people care about the head
stud type? Not technically, because it makes no difference for display or play.
Do collectors care about having period-correct parts for their sets? Absolutely.
If you remove the distinction, of course most buyers will no longer care, BECAUSE
the distinction has been removed. That doesn't prove your point; it proves
that whatever is listed in the inventory is believed to be correct, and buyers
tend to want the correct parts. If you change what is defined as "correct,"
of course it will change many buyers' preferences. But it doesn't change
the objective fact that a certain mold variation was not produced during a certain
time period or in any original copies of a certain minifigure or set. It just
obscures those minor differences and pretends they don't exist, which isn't
the same thing at all. Whether or not people "care" is completely irrelevant.
They bought the variants because there's evidence that they are period-correct,
and they CARE about being CORRECT.
Am I comfortable making more on a Light Gray part than a Light Bluish Gray part?
Absolutely. Am I comfortable making more on a 3942b than a 3942c? Absolutely.
It's not a "lie" -- it's precision. But evidently, Bricklink
wants to be less precise.
|
Thankyou for putting it much better into words then I could
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Thankyou for putting it much better into words then I could
|
You're welcome. I'm spending my workday explaining what I feel should
be self-evident to everyone and not filling 200-lot and 100-lot orders I've
got sitting in my queue, so it feels like a waste. But it is what it is. I've
already resigned myself to the fact that this post wasn't really an opportunity
to object or change what's already been decided; it was simply a heads-up
that it WILL change regardless of what collectors or sellers want. I will lose
sales, and inventories will be less accurate, and I can't do anything about
it. Fortunately, even though these types of mold variations are one of my store's
specialties, they're only a small portion of my total sales. It's frustrating,
but it's not that important in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | I will lose sales, and inventories will be less accurate, and I can't do anything about
it. Fortunately, even though these types of mold variations are one of my store's
specialties, they're only a small portion of my total sales.
|
Highly specialized shops are an asset to BrickLink and for people seeking specific
elements or genre. Like Duplo/Fab shops, old colors, Technic, Castle, boats
- and of course licences like SW, HP... there are many specializations, and it's
good for the market in a general meaning.
In short, thank you!
Of course, depending on how exactly it's implemented - I'm think/hope
you wont feel ANY (bad) change in your sales.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | Highly specialized shops are an asset to BrickLink and for people seeking specific
elements or genre. Like Duplo/Fab shops, old colors, Technic, Castle, boats
- and of course licences like SW, HP... there are many specializations, and it's
good for the market in a general meaning.
In short, thank you!
Of course, depending on how exactly it's implemented - I'm think/hope
you wont feel ANY (bad) change in your sales.
|
Again, I'm not highly specialized. I have a huge inventory. I'm simply
more precise than the vast majority of stores are about small variations. I focus
more on vintage parts than modern parts, but only slightly.
I WILL see a change in my sales. I don't think you understand how closely
I track my orders and items sold. I know this will directly affect my sales.
I can only estimate the exact numbers, but yesterday, I sold $25.46 of parts
that I believe will be merged, and I doubt any of those would've sold if
the parts weren't differentiated in set inventories. Which will be the case
in 3 weeks. It won't matter if I differentiate them with comments --
I'll still lose approximately 90% of those sales.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 14:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | Of course, depending on how exactly it's implemented - I'm think/hope
you wont feel ANY (bad) change in your sales.
|
Again, I'm not highly specialized. I have a huge inventory.
|
Having "everything" is a specialization in itself.
It's called the "long tail" in Marketing, IIRC.
| | I WILL see a change in my sales. I don't think you understand how closely
I track my orders and items sold. I know this will directly affect my sales.
I can only estimate the exact numbers, but yesterday, I sold $25.46 of parts
that I believe will be merged, and I doubt any of those would've sold if
the parts weren't differentiated in set inventories.
|
I don't know how it'll appear in Inventories, sorry.
But apparently you can separate both lots, so 3747a will have their own way to
be sold, whatever the reference will be.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 17:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | | | Of course, depending on how exactly it's implemented - I'm think/hope
you wont feel ANY (bad) change in your sales.
|
Again, I'm not highly specialized. I have a huge inventory.
|
Having "everything" is a specialization in itself.
It's called the "long tail" in Marketing, IIRC.
|
The long tail in marketing is catering to many niche markets at the same time.
That is far different from having "everything".
In other words, what I think you meant to say is that specializing in many niche
markets is itself a specialized niche.
| |
| | I WILL see a change in my sales. I don't think you understand how closely
I track my orders and items sold. I know this will directly affect my sales.
I can only estimate the exact numbers, but yesterday, I sold $25.46 of parts
that I believe will be merged, and I doubt any of those would've sold if
the parts weren't differentiated in set inventories.
|
I don't know how it'll appear in Inventories, sorry.
But apparently you can separate both lots, so 3747a will have their own way to
be sold, whatever the reference will be.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 18:14 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 18:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | | | Of course, depending on how exactly it's implemented - I'm think/hope
you wont feel ANY (bad) change in your sales.
|
Again, I'm not highly specialized. I have a huge inventory.
|
Having "everything" is a specialization in itself.
It's called the "long tail" in Marketing, IIRC.
|
The long tail in marketing is catering to many niche markets at the same time.
That is far different from having "everything".
In other words, what I think you meant to say is that specializing in many niche
markets is itself a specialized niche.
|
It's more a business Term (sorry), cf. Wikipedia:
This is used to describe the retailing strategy of selling many unique items
with relatively small quantities sold of each (the long tail) — usually in addition
to selling fewer popular items in large quantities (the head).
I meant, on the 15,000 opened shop, about 1% or less have more than 20,000 lots.
Maximum I've seen is over 90,000 lots!
But if you remove the duplicate lots that's maybe only the half of them which
have really 20,000 different ones.
One German shop has 292 Lots of Technic Pin 2780 - a buyer's nightmare
So, those with a huge number of lots represent maybe 0.5% or 0.33% - a third
of a percent!
It's a (very tiny) niche
A tiny niche of huge inventories.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Bobflip | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | | | Of course, depending on how exactly it's implemented - I'm think/hope
you wont feel ANY (bad) change in your sales.
|
Again, I'm not highly specialized. I have a huge inventory.
|
Having "everything" is a specialization in itself.
It's called the "long tail" in Marketing, IIRC.
|
The long tail in marketing is catering to many niche markets at the same time.
That is far different from having "everything".
In other words, what I think you meant to say is that specializing in many niche
markets is itself a specialized niche.
|
It's more a business Term (sorry), cf. Wikipedia:
This is used to describe the retailing strategy of selling many unique items
with relatively small quantities sold of each (the long tail) — usually in addition
to selling fewer popular items in large quantities (the head).
I meant, on the 15,000 opened shop, about 1% or less have more than 20,000 lots.
Maximum I've seen is over 90,000 lots!
But if you remove the duplicate lots that's maybe only the half of them which
have really 20,000 different ones.
One German shop has 292 Lots of Technic Pin 2780 - a buyer's nightmare
So, those with a huge number of lots represent maybe 0.5% or 0.33% - a third
of a percent!
It's a (very tiny) niche
A tiny niche of huge inventories.
|
I dislike and back out as soon as I see a store doing that... Not spending time
going through dozens of identical lots, haha!
Would love something to be done about it
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | sbpyrat | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'm late to the game, but got the email this morning and just checked this
forum discussion. I scrolled through the beginning and end comments on this
thread, but it's a little overwhelming to get through it all.
Like many, I hate the loss of data. Many replies say, you can make notes as
to which variation you have, which is fine. But if a vintage set doesn't
list which variation, then a customer trying to complete a vintage set with original
variation parts won't know which part to be looking for.
Also, it seems the average 6 month/for sale prices will merge rarer and common
variation prices together, rendering the price date far less accurate when there
is a large variation in the value of different variations.
If this change is inevitable, there is something I haven't seen in the comments
so far (though I definitely could have missed it because there are so many).
When two variations with different prices are merged in a store's inventory,
what price will be used? Or will there still be two lots, now with two different
prices? If the latter, then at least it would be easier (not as easy for stores
with larger inventories) to sort by duplicate lots, then add the text notes as
to which of each is which.
I do appreciate the very long list of affected parts, but realistically I likely
won't have time go through that list pre-merge. Would it be possible for
Bricklink to just assign that text to the affected lots when making this change.
It seems like it would be much more efficient for that to be done programmatically
than manually. Then if Sellers wanted to merge the parts on their own and remove
the comments, they could make those changes themselves.
While I'm not in favor of these changes as a whole, if they are going to
happen, it would be nice if the impact was as minimal as possible.
Not sure the feasibility, could the pre-change set inventories be preserved somewhere?
That way the current data would be available for people completing vintage sets?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | […]
That doesn't prove your point; it proves
that whatever is listed in the inventory is believed to be correct,
|
THAT was my point. There’s minifigs that came with only one variant but there’s
many minifigs that came with two variants, and sometimes at the same time, depending
on the factory, not because of a reissue or long life, but the catalogue misleads
people in thinking one is more correct than the other.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | […]
That doesn't prove your point; it proves
that whatever is listed in the inventory is believed to be correct,
|
THAT was my point. There’s minifigs that came with only one variant but there’s
many minifigs that came with two variants, and sometimes at the same time, depending
on the factory, not because of a reissue or long life, but the catalogue misleads
people in thinking one is more correct than the other.
|
Okay, I agree with that assertion. But that mostly just applies to the blocked
open stud heads vs hollow heads. And even then, blocked open stud heads existed
for over 15 years before hollow stud heads came along. Do you really thing that
having a hollow stud plain-smiley head on a mid-'90s minifigure is "correct"
in any sense?
And anyway, these changes encompass a lot of other mold variations that didn't
overlap, or only slightly overlapped.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | […]
That doesn't prove your point; it proves
that whatever is listed in the inventory is believed to be correct,
|
THAT was my point. There’s minifigs that came with only one variant but there’s
many minifigs that came with two variants, and sometimes at the same time, depending
on the factory, not because of a reissue or long life, but the catalogue misleads
people in thinking one is more correct than the other.
|
Okay, I agree with that assertion. But that mostly just applies to the blocked
open stud heads vs hollow heads. And even then, blocked open stud heads existed
for over 15 years before hollow stud heads came along. Do you really thing that
having a hollow stud plain-smiley head on a mid-'90s minifigure is "correct"
in any sense?
And anyway, these changes encompass a lot of other mold variations that didn't
overlap, or only slightly overlapped.
|
are Joker Heads getting merged...?
( )
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | […]
And anyway, these changes encompass a lot of other mold variations that didn't
overlap, or only slightly overlapped.
|
See my point about holes in underside pins on bricks (or plates):
That distinction was never made in the catalogue.
If you want a 1980 part full pins for a 1980 set, maybe you’ll get a 1995¹ part
full pins, is that correct? 15 years apart?
If you want a 1995¹ part full pins for a 1995 set, and you get a 1995¹ part hollow
pins, is that wrong?
The thing is that buyer or seller, you always had to resort to notes and communication
for those variations.
Sure, there’s a loss of information. But there’s also wrong info that will be
removed. And maybe we can have notes added to keep the correct info. Having
the info through the database structure (that is, different entries rather than
free text in notes) allows more automation, but it also multiplies entries and
complicates thing for casual users (who are the majority).
Sure, there’s other solutions: real umbrella entries, options in entries…. But
that’s not what BL chose to do because they require a change in the database
structure.
———
¹ Or whatever year was the last one for ‘full pins’ / the first one for ‘hollow
pins.’
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 14:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | […]
And anyway, these changes encompass a lot of other mold variations that didn't
overlap, or only slightly overlapped.
|
See my point about holes in underside pins on bricks (or plates):
That distinction was never made in the catalogue.
If you want a 1980 part full pins for a 1980 set, maybe you’ll get a 1995¹ part
full pins, is that correct? 15 years apart?
If you want a 1995¹ part full pins for a 1995 set, and you get a 1995¹ part hollow
pins, is that wrong?
The thing is that buyer or seller, you always had to resort to notes and communication
for those variations.
Sure, there’s a loss of information. But there’s also wrong info that will be
removed. And maybe we can have notes added to keep the correct info. Having
the info through the database structure (that is, different entries rather than
free text in notes) allows more automation, but it also multiplies entries and
complicates thing for casual users (who are the majority).
Sure, there’s other solutions: real umbrella entries, options in entries…. But
that’s not what BL chose to do because they require a change in the database
structure.
———
¹ Or whatever year was the last one for ‘full pins’ / the first one for ‘hollow
pins.’
|
Yeah, and when I part together vintage sets, or inventory ones I've bought,
I substitute those solid-pin/hollow-pin 1x* plates as necessary. I'm precise
like that!
But in principle, know that I agree with you. That's part of the reason these
changes are so frustrating, because I'm of two minds. In principle, I agree
-- but as a seller and business owner, this will cost me sales. As a collector,
this will make inventories less precise. So from those perspectives, I don't
agree. It's a difficult space to inhabit mentally, both agreeing and disagreeing.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | […]
It's a difficult space to inhabit mentally, both agreeing and disagreeing.
|
Welcome to my mind
Half what I’m saying is my open-minded half trying to convince my OCD half.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | […]
It's a difficult space to inhabit mentally, both agreeing and disagreeing.
|
Welcome to my mind
Half what I’m saying is my open-minded half trying to convince my OCD half.
|
Closer every day to the straitjacket
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 15:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | […]
It's a difficult space to inhabit mentally, both agreeing and disagreeing.
|
Welcome to my mind
Half what I’m saying is my open-minded half trying to convince my OCD half.
|
Closer every day to the straitjacket
|
you'd give him yours?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 00:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | though most of the language I'm hearing is trying
| | to minimize the effect that this will have on inventories, I believe that the
changes will make things significantly more difficult and frustrating for many
collectors.
Lastly, please recognize that for some of us sellers, these proposed changes
will directly hurt our bottom line. I've put a lot of time and money into
investing in certain variants that can be hard to find, and I have suppliers
that specifically search bulk for some of these soon-to-be-deleted variants,
which I pay a premium for. For example, over the years I've put a lot of
resources into having a huge stock of 4032b. It's been a best-selling part
for me for years, and if it's merged with 4032, all that time and money will
be wasted -- I know I can differentiate them with comments, but I also know
that my sales will drop drastically due to the part not being separated in set
inventories. Another example is part 553a. I don't know if that one's
going away, but I've invested a lot in having those verified parts, separate
from 553b and 553c, because buyers want them for certain old sets. Same for vintage
46212 in non-transparent colors. Same for certain blocked-open heads. Same for
3747a.
I estimate that these changes will cost me hundreds of dollars in sales every
month, not to mention all the work I've done in the past being negated. Please
understand that this is very, very frustrating and disheartening.
|
in addition to that, with blocked versus hollow heads. I've spent lots of
money to get say blocked instead of hollow for certain heads to get correct versions
so if they are combined I'm also out lots of money. if this change didn't
affect minifigure parts it would be much better. hollow versus blocked are iconic
to the point I even have label some storage drawers as such
|
If you already sort a particular variant, simply add the descriptor to your listing
notes for each item. You can still sell them even though they are not distinguished
in the catalog. No need to lose money.
|
Russell, I'm sorry but imo sellers who invested in old variants will loose
sales, because once variants are merged, inventories don't show these variants
anymore. It has been said before and the only BrickLink members who know this
are the sellers who really do distinguish variants.
If someone wants to complete a set, it now shows in the inventory which variant
they should buy. Once these variants are merged, it doesn't show anymore,
so buyers will go for the cheapest one and get the more modern / variant (they
don't know anymore that the dome top should have a blocked open stud, so
they won't be looking for it). Sellers can add to their notes whatever they
want, but sales will drop.
In my experience most buyers don't read the notes now and once variants are
not shown in set inventories anymore, they won't even understand what that
note means anymore.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 12:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | If you already sort a particular variant, simply add the descriptor to your listing
notes for each item. You can still sell them even though they are not distinguished
in the catalog. No need to lose money.
|
With respect, that is incorrect. I know my store very well and have extensive
data on the sales patterns due to being an Excel nerd. And I already have comments
for quite a few minor variations that Bricklink doesn't differentiate in
the catalog, and almost none of them sell (the only real exceptions being misprints
and Old Dark Red, which regularly sells better than the New Dark Reds even at
a higher price point).
Sure, if I price the 3747a variant the same as the 3747b variant under the new
umbrella entry, they'll both sell. But any markup for vintage variations
will almost certainly stop selling, and I have hundreds of these lots, many of
which are good or great sellers. Please trust me to know my business, and
make no mistake -- these changes will cost me hundreds in sales every month.
If you'd like, I will take the time to go through every order for the last
month and add up my sales for the parts to be changed, and then add up the sales
in February for the same parts when they're only differentiated with listing
notes.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:37 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | If you already sort a particular variant, simply add the descriptor to your listing
notes for each item. You can still sell them even though they are not distinguished
in the catalog. No need to lose money.
|
With respect, that is incorrect. I know my store very well and have extensive
data on the sales patterns due to being an Excel nerd. And I already have comments
for quite a few minor variations that Bricklink doesn't differentiate in
the catalog, and almost none of them sell (the only real exceptions being misprints
and Old Dark Red, which regularly sells better than the New Dark Reds even at
a higher price point).
Sure, if I price the 3747a variant the same as the 3747b variant under the new
umbrella entry, they'll both sell. But any markup for vintage variations
will almost certainly stop selling, and I have hundreds of these lots, many of
which are good or great sellers. Please trust me to know my business, and
make no mistake -- these changes will cost me hundreds in sales every month.
If you'd like, I will take the time to go through every order for the last
month and add up my sales for the parts to be changed, and then add up the sales
in February for the same parts when they're only differentiated with listing
notes.
|
Surely its just a case of listing the merged part twice with different comments/prices
for each variant?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Surely its just a case of listing the merged part twice with different comments/prices
for each variant?
|
Did you not read what I wrote? I clearly explained why that's not the case.
If the set inventories are changed, THAT'S what gets rid of the demand. Merging
the parts or separating them with comments is irrelevant. I already do that for
my many minor mold variations that Bricklink has never separated, and those parts
don't sell because. they're. not. differentiated. in. set. inventories.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 14:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Surely its just a case of listing the merged part twice with different comments/prices
for each variant?
|
Did you not read what I wrote? I clearly explained why that's not the case.
If the set inventories are changed, THAT'S what gets rid of the demand. Merging
the parts or separating them with comments is irrelevant. I already do that for
my many minor mold variations that Bricklink has never separated, and those parts
don't sell because. they're. not. differentiated. in. set. inventories.
|
I do understand what your saying but I think you've also answered you own
question.... because if your saying that these parts are only desirable because
Bricklink has specifically inventoried/associated them with old sets then for
all intensive purposes people only care about these minor variants for this very
reason and so if bricklink merges them, going by your words "those buyers
will no longer care about the variants" and therefore from Bricklink and
the rest of communities point of view its problem solved as everyone ends up
with a more straight forward and functional site
Whilst I appreciate you may feel that this will now make your variants far less
desirable is this good enough reason to hinder the progression of the sites functionality
for all other users in general?
Yes maybe you lose out on a few sales because some people are no longer aware
that they need a certain type for a specific old set but on the same token maybe
that also saves those buyers a lot of grief with trying to match their variant
purchases to what the bricklink set inventories state even though for the most
part it appears not to be all that important but at the end of the day if these
minor variants are desirable enough people will seek them out regardless but
if they're only desirable because Bricklinks catalog makes them desirable
then maybe they're not all they desirable after all. Either way you cant
have it both ways?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | dsimpsonugcs | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 04:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | If you already sort a particular variant, simply add the descriptor to your listing
notes for each item. You can still sell them even though they are not distinguished
in the catalog. No need to lose money.
|
Why is this a good UX, or even an acceptable UX?
I can attest to how much of a PITA it is to rely upon the variant description
in the seller comments already is as I just last week purchased a number of classic
space torsos and minifigures for my
minifigures I wanted ones without the interior ribs. BL doesn't differinitate
between the torsos with small ribs and no ribs in the catalog entry for 973p90c02
and consquently sp005 as well. Only the seller descriptions do. Right now,
there are 350 items for sale of 973p90c02 and 787 of sp005 that ship to where
I live (in the USA). I then I have to use my browser's text search to find
the items I'm interested in. Except that's complicated by the fact that
different sellers describe the same thing different ways. Some say, "no
ribs." Some say, "without ribs." Some use "prongs" or "supports"
instead of "ribs." Others even use "hollow core." Some may
not even be in English. I had to search separately for each of these terms.
I may have missed some. And since there are more than 500, they can't all
be seen on one page, so all these multiple searches had to be done on multiple
pages.
Point being, there's no well defined way to even describe a variant. Having
a separate catalog entry (or variant within an umbrella entry, if such functionality
were introduced) would have considerably improved this experience. Catalog entries
provide a shared (and enforced) vocabulary to describe elements.
This proposal makes this situation worse by adding a third variant. More items
to search. More differing descriptions. A seller will undoubtably use "with
ribs." Are they small ribs or the modern larger ones?
Additionally, this proposal effectively makes other BL shopping features unusable
when trying to shop for a variant that is not separately listed. For example,
the "Buy Wanted List" feature cannot be used as it is practically impossible
to filter out stores only selling variants of the element one doesn't want.
A single element on a wanted list where a particular variant is desired is enough
to poison the entire list and make shopping for many different element types
considerably more painful. Hitting the "Select" button for a particular
store doesn't even show the seller descriptions for the items! Yet, this
proposal wants me to rely upon those descriptions that can't be filtered,
or in some cases even bothered to be displayed.
It makes far more sense to introduce a modicum of hierarchy to the catalog database.
Variations could be listed under a higher level umbrella entry. By default,
when a user added an element to a wanted list it would be the umbrella element
encompassing all the variants. They could then optionally pick the variant (or
variants) they actually want (and for some nifty UX even show the average price
of each of those variants in the selection box). Sellers could choose whether
to sort by variant or not, likely being able to charge higher prices when
they choose to do so. When purchasing, stores either not sorting the variants
or not selling the particular variant a buyer is interested in would trivially
be filtered out. Set and minifigure inventories would be changed to show the
known variant(s) it came with. That would partially clean-up the "alternate
items" sections.
Would all that be easy? No. Will there be exceptions in the catalog that cause
arguments? Tons of them. I'm confident though the catalog maintainers could
accomplish such an undertaking. But the UX would need to be designed and implemented
to match. If done properly, users that don't care about variants could ignore
them. Even more so than they do now. Users that do care, would have a much
better toolset to shop for them. And the catalog could be made even more accurate.
And finally, removing information for all is not the proper response to information
overload for some (or even a majority). Properly displaying and building a great
UX that makes handling all of that data a breeze is.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 21:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| |
in addition to that, with blocked versus hollow heads. I've spent lots of
money to get say blocked instead of hollow for certain heads to get correct versions
so if they are combined I'm also out lots of money.
|
Not if you continue to keep them separated and sell them the way you are. No
matter what the BL catalog changes the collectors are not going to suddenly forget
these variations exist and they will continue to go to extreme lengths to seek
them out. Adding variation notes in the comments will take away much of the hassle
that comes with needing to ask/check which in turn will have them flocking to
your store!
| | if this change didn't
affect minifigure parts it would be much better. hollow versus blocked are iconic
to the point I even have label some storage drawers as such
|
For me this is the main area I want changed as I've always hated how one
stud type is associated with the minfig inventory whilst the other is almost
disregarded and hidden away from view. Merging them together will be a much welcome
and long overdue change in my view!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 21:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| to a point but much of the demand will be gone as for example in the past I would
have pursued and paid 3x+ for a head if I needed blocked instead of hollow or
vice versa but now I have no need to and I know I'm not the only one. yes
some will still be interested and may pay a premium but demand will fall and
as such the values
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 21:54 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | to a point but much of the demand will be gone as for example in the past I would
have pursued and paid 3x+ for a head if I needed blocked instead of hollow or
vice versa but now I have no need to and I know I'm not the only one. yes
some will still be interested and may pay a premium but demand will fall and
as such the values
|
I honestly think it will have the opposite effect because where the majority
of sellers no longer bother to separate variants, sellers like yourself will
have more exclusivity over the variant market
Also even if a newer buyer isn't familiar with past variants and how they
were once separated on BL there will still be notes about the variants within
the single catalog entry and those types that are inclined to collect things
will likely still want to seek out and collect regardless of there being two
entries or not!
Likewise if you list the part in your store twice using same entry and different
descriptions of Blocked and Hollow the varying degree in price difference alone
is certainly going spark some curiosity and interest from buyers especially if
the more expensive variant you are offering doesn't appear to be all that
readily available or advertised clearly elsewhere!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 23:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Hi,
I'm opposed to this. As one of the sellers who differentiates every part
carefully, I frequently get messages asking me to confirm which variant I'm
sending. Buyers do want period-accurate mold differences, including ones on that
list. I realize I could still list these differences in the comments, but the
problem is that they're presumably going to be removed from inventories,
so buyers and collectors won't know which sets are supposed to have which
variants.
|
In general, nothing will change. This is simply a correction of a few minor variants.
The vast majority of variants will remain untouched and supported fully as we
move forward.
When a merge happens, the resulting parts will still be in inventories. A variant
merge is actually a minimally disruptive process where the distinction between
the two items is lost. But the inventories, wanted lists, sales records and price
guide will be brought forward.
| | Before continuing, I would like some clarification on a few points, please.
1) For the tiles with/without groove, does this mean that 3068b 2x2 Tile With
Groove will become 3068 2x2 Tile, but that 3068a 2x2 Tile Without Groove will
still be an entry?
|
Yes.
| | Or will 3068a be deleted and merged?
|
No. For the 4 basic parts represented by the last example on the Help page, no
merges will take place, just a renaming and renumbering of the current "b"
variant.
| | 2) For Blocked and Vented studs, does this mean merging those two categories,
or does it mean merging Blocked, Vented, AND Hollow studs into one entry? Will
all non-solid stud minifig heads be considered the same? Or will Blocked/Vented
and Hollow still remain two separate entries?
|
All Blocked and Vented studs will be merged to Hollow, but we may or may not
retain the term "Hollow". In either case, the solid stud heads will remain
unchanged, but we will add them to more inventories and create more minifigures
to fill out the collection.
| | 3) If merging is happening to both X-shaped axle holes and Inside Side Supports,
does this mean that all 3 variants of 32064 will be considered the same part?
|
Yes. But for the record, the 32064 entry currently is an umbrella entry anyway.
If you just want the the modern version, there is no entry on BrickLink that
will guarantee that.
[p=32064b]
[p=32064c]
| | 4) Will the Inside Side Supports cause 2454 and 46212 to be merged?
|
46212 is the transparent version of 2454. There is no reason they should be split
and they will be merged.
[p=46212]
|
They do exist in black, blue, red, light gray and white.
| |
| | 5) What will happen to 1x2 jumper plates? Will 3794a, 3794b, and 15573 all be
merged into one entry? I think that's absolutely ridiculous if so, and I
would be very annoyed if I received 15573 in a used set from the '90s. Most
collectors would.
|
We're not even thinking of touching the jumpers. They are all considered
first class cosmetic variants. Even the stud holders on the 15573 are considered
cosmetic due to uses like:
|
That's a relief.
| |
| | Some of these entries I understand changing, like the Smooth Slopes. For others,
though, I think it is very irresponsible to collectors to change the inventory.
It's one thing to make 3068b the default 3068, for example, but a totally
different thing to eliminate the entry for 3068a and remove the differentiation
in set inventories. And that goes for most of these variants. The variants are
there so that collectors can have a more accurate set and buyers can find period-accurate
parts. Like I said, I receive a lot of these orders and I know how detail-oriented
Lego collectors can be.
|
In general, I agree. And in general, we aren't changing BrickLink's commitment
to variants. But I would ask, for example - what do you feel about the hinges
with teeth? Do you really think it matters?
It can only matter when someone is being super fussy about period variants, but
the reality is that BrickLink does not recognize most variants. Getting the exact
period element is not something BrickLink ever supported. Take, for example,
the solid and hollow pins on the bottom of 1 x X plates and bricks. This is actually
one of my favorites, and I very much appreciate the correct parts. But BrickLink
has never and likely will never distinguish to such a degree, because it's
impractical.
And the hinges with teeth are impractical. Academically they are interesting,
but they function exactly the same, and who uses hinges for cosmetic reasons?
The only use case is collectors wanting to fill out an old set, and we are so
very far from being able to provide that level of distinction on BrickLink.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ghyde | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 02:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Hi,
I'm opposed to this. As one of the sellers who differentiates every part
carefully, I frequently get messages asking me to confirm which variant I'm
sending. Buyers do want period-accurate mold differences, including ones on that
list. I realize I could still list these differences in the comments, but the
problem is that they're presumably going to be removed from inventories,
so buyers and collectors won't know which sets are supposed to have which
variants.
|
In general, nothing will change. This is simply a correction of a few minor variants.
The vast majority of variants will remain untouched and supported fully as we
move forward.
When a merge happens, the resulting parts will still be in inventories. A variant
merge is actually a minimally disruptive process where the distinction between
the two items is lost. But the inventories, wanted lists, sales records and price
guide will be brought forward.
| | Before continuing, I would like some clarification on a few points, please.
1) For the tiles with/without groove, does this mean that 3068b 2x2 Tile With
Groove will become 3068 2x2 Tile, but that 3068a 2x2 Tile Without Groove will
still be an entry?
|
Yes.
| | Or will 3068a be deleted and merged?
|
No. For the 4 basic parts represented by the last example on the Help page, no
merges will take place, just a renaming and renumbering of the current "b"
variant.
| | 2) For Blocked and Vented studs, does this mean merging those two categories,
or does it mean merging Blocked, Vented, AND Hollow studs into one entry? Will
all non-solid stud minifig heads be considered the same? Or will Blocked/Vented
and Hollow still remain two separate entries?
|
All Blocked and Vented studs will be merged to Hollow, but we may or may not
retain the term "Hollow". In either case, the solid stud heads will remain
unchanged, but we will add them to more inventories and create more minifigures
to fill out the collection.
| | 3) If merging is happening to both X-shaped axle holes and Inside Side Supports,
does this mean that all 3 variants of 32064 will be considered the same part?
|
Yes. But for the record, the 32064 entry currently is an umbrella entry anyway.
If you just want the the modern version, there is no entry on BrickLink that
will guarantee that.
[p=32064b]
[p=32064c]
| | 4) Will the Inside Side Supports cause 2454 and 46212 to be merged?
|
46212 is the transparent version of 2454. There is no reason they should be split
and they will be merged.
[p=46212]
| | 5) What will happen to 1x2 jumper plates? Will 3794a, 3794b, and 15573 all be
merged into one entry? I think that's absolutely ridiculous if so, and I
would be very annoyed if I received 15573 in a used set from the '90s. Most
collectors would.
|
We're not even thinking of touching the jumpers. They are all considered
first class cosmetic variants. Even the stud holders on the 15573 are considered
cosmetic due to uses like:
| | Some of these entries I understand changing, like the Smooth Slopes. For others,
though, I think it is very irresponsible to collectors to change the inventory.
It's one thing to make 3068b the default 3068, for example, but a totally
different thing to eliminate the entry for 3068a and remove the differentiation
in set inventories. And that goes for most of these variants. The variants are
there so that collectors can have a more accurate set and buyers can find period-accurate
parts. Like I said, I receive a lot of these orders and I know how detail-oriented
Lego collectors can be.
|
In general, I agree. And in general, we aren't changing BrickLink's commitment
to variants. But I would ask, for example - what do you feel about the hinges
with teeth? Do you really think it matters?
It can only matter when someone is being super fussy about period variants, but
the reality is that BrickLink does not recognize most variants. Getting the exact
period element is not something BrickLink ever supported. Take, for example,
the solid and hollow pins on the bottom of 1 x X plates and bricks. This is actually
one of my favorites, and I very much appreciate the correct parts. But BrickLink
has never and likely will never distinguish to such a degree, because it's
impractical.
And the hinges with teeth are impractical. Academically they are interesting,
but they function exactly the same, and who uses hinges for cosmetic reasons?
The only use case is collectors wanting to fill out an old set, and we are so
very far from being able to provide that level of distinction on BrickLink.
|
This is not exactly true. The hinges with teeth set the spacing for the angles
at which each hinge can rotate at. They also do not interlock properly with each
other. From a functional standpoint it would not be possible to create a proper
and smooth connection if the angle the hinges interlock at was not correct.
Why hasn't anyone in the administrative department at BrickLink investigated
whether or not there is actually and really a functional difference between
different hinge types before merging them all into one category?
I've tried using two different styles of interlocking hinges with each other
and the gap is quite obvious to a collector who wants an exactly matching gap
for a MOC or replacement part that they're building.
I haven't removed any quoted text as some of the previous discussion seems
to have implied relevance in part. Apologies if this makes this post longer than
it should be. I was not certain of which parts of a multipart discussion could
safely be removed.
I am mentioning this because there are interlocking hinges from when they were
first produced that no longer interlock correctly with parts from the current
interlocking hinge system. If you were unaware that this was a problem I respectfully
request that you investigate the hinge variants and leave in the variants that
have to be distinguished to allow the correctly matching hinge part to be used
with them.
Correctly matching in this case means that both the teeth and the locking nub
on the part that they interlock with are at the correct angle for the parts so
that they interlock as intended.
Just observations I've seen from trying to use new interlocking hinges with
old interlocking hinges. I'm currently moving into a life-changing situation
that will require a lot of my attention, otherwise I would go and find these
interlocking hinges myself and submit examples of what I mean.
Cockpit variations come to mind, in particular, I'd recommend looking at
how new and old cockpits with interlocking teeth or nubs interact with their
counterparts, and I would recommend that you not merge two interlocking system
that do not properly interlock with each other. This can also affect other interlocking
elements besides cockpits, so the entries with interlocking hinges all have to
be investigated to ensure that they all properly interlock and are properly paired
with their counterpart(s).
Please do message me privately if you are unable to find what I'm referring
to. If I can, I may be able to dig up some very explicit examples, and will quite
happily respond with any information and photos I can upload. I'd also encourage
anyone else that knows what I'm talking about to reply with information that
they have!
Interlocking hinges that don't properly interlock with their matching interlocking
nub are a very real issue and if BrickLink does not properly distinguish them
then buyers will have issues finding the parts that properly interlock with each
other.
I am aware that this will require a lot of time-consuming investigation. I do
recommend that the administrative team not change anything until they have fully
and properly investigated the suggested changes. A couple of weeks may not be
sufficient to have brought up these issues I've written about in this post.
I would prefer, however, that the BrickLink administrative team get this right,
rather than messing up the hinges section and leave it unfixed for months on
end. If you are going to make changes I respectfully request that you get them
right before changing them.
Cheers ...
ghyde
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 02:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Correctly matching in this case means that both the teeth and the locking nub
|
Nub!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 02:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, ghyde writes:
| | […]
This is not exactly true. The hinges with teeth set the spacing for the angles
at which each hinge can rotate at. They also do not interlock properly with each
other. From a functional standpoint it would not be possible to create a proper
and smooth connection if the angle the hinges interlock at was not correct. […]
|
What you’re saying doesn’t really make sense.
The difference between 9 & 7 teeth doesn’t change the placement of the teeth
and doesn’t really change the way they interact with their one-finger counterparts.
It’s only that 2 teeth have been removed (see pic).
So:
— No, there isn’t fewer positions or different positions: the 1-finger is as
much locked by the sides of the locking bit than by the tooth that can enter
in the middle slot of the locking bit.
— Yes, you could think the missing tooth makes some (5 out of 9) positions looser
/ less locking (locked by two teeth instead of three), but they actually aren’t
that much looser when you test them.
Also, the one-finger locking bit hasn’t changed at all.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ghyde | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 02:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, ghyde writes:
| | […]
This is not exactly true. The hinges with teeth set the spacing for the angles
at which each hinge can rotate at. They also do not interlock properly with each
other. From a functional standpoint it would not be possible to create a proper
and smooth connection if the angle the hinges interlock at was not correct. […]
|
What you’re saying doesn’t really make sense.
The difference between 9 & 7 teeth doesn’t change the placement of the teeth
and doesn’t really change the way they interact with their one-finger counterparts.
It’s only that 2 teeth have been removed (see pic).
So:
— No, there isn’t fewer positions or different positions: the 1-finger is as
much locked by the sides of the locking bit than by the tooth that can enter
in the middle slot of the locking bit.
— Yes, you could think the missing tooth makes some (5 out of 9) positions looser
/ less locking (locked by two teeth instead of three), but they actually aren’t
that much looser when you test them.
Also, the one-finger locking bit hasn’t changed at all.
|
Did you check into it with the cockpit hinge parts and the plates that they interlock
to?
I think it is definitely an issue with newer and older cockpit hinge parts. I
have personally seen an actual cockpit part that does not quite sit flat with
one type of hinge but works with the other type. Testing needs to be done and
these variants properly identified so that they don't get wiped out by the
changes.
I have also noticed that if a part has two interlocking parts, a male and a female,
on each end, that older variants do not line up properly with the newer variants.
These are out there, someone knows what they are, and they all need to be checked
anyway.
Cheers ...
ghyde
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 05:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Indeed, the functional angles are exactly the same and I haven't noticed
any practical difference in the 'holding power' of the different hinges.
The only situation I can see it being important is if a single part of the hinge
is being used for decorative uroses rather than a functional hinge.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 19:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, ghyde writes:
| | […]
This is not exactly true. The hinges with teeth set the spacing for the angles
at which each hinge can rotate at. They also do not interlock properly with each
other. From a functional standpoint it would not be possible to create a proper
and smooth connection if the angle the hinges interlock at was not correct. […]
|
What you’re saying doesn’t really make sense.
The difference between 9 & 7 teeth doesn’t change the placement of the teeth
and doesn’t really change the way they interact with their one-finger counterparts.
It’s only that 2 teeth have been removed (see pic).
So:
— No, there isn’t fewer positions or different positions: the 1-finger is as
much locked by the sides of the locking bit than by the tooth that can enter
in the middle slot of the locking bit.
— Yes, you could think the missing tooth makes some (5 out of 9) positions looser
/ less locking (locked by two teeth instead of three), but they actually aren’t
that much looser when you test them.
Also, the one-finger locking bit hasn’t changed at all.
|
Not true. There have been subtle changes to it as well over the years.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I am aware that this will require a lot of time-consuming investigation. I do
recommend that the administrative team not change anything until they have fully
and properly investigated the suggested changes.
|
Do you really think that with, what 50 BrickLink staff, they didn't have
a group of say 6 persons planning this change for 3 or 6 months, along with
hundred pages reports, meetings, consulting builders and catalog fans (like Russell),
and based on worldwide stats (you don't have)???
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
Russell, thanks for reaching out to the community on this. Whilst I understand
the concerns from collectors/contributors I think we have to consider using a
system that better serves the wider community as a whole and removing these variants
certainly does this therefore your proposal gets my full support!
As far as I can tell the Pro’s far outweigh the Cons
I think what those passionate variant enthusiasts need to consider here is that
the extra seller work load and time spent dealing with these minor variants is
actually detrimental to the vast majority of buyers and sellers here as a whole.
Minor variants require extra time and extra storage space, both of which are
precious commodities. With less inventory to manage a seller can be more organized,
more efficient and potentially offer a wider selection of parts to fill this
newly freed up space!
I’ve also never liked the idea that one minifig head type is somehow inferior
to another in the sense that one is closely associated with the minfig inventory
whilst the other type is seemingly hidden away in the shadows!
I believe most buyers just want to buy the head whilst comparing prices with
ease. Having to look in two places for essentially the same thing is far from
ideal (That’s if the buyer is even fully aware to look in this second location?)
Also on the subject of contributions. I don’t think this is a good enough reason
to hold out with an old way of doing things. The current system may have served
its purpose for all these years with an idea that was thought to be the best
approach at the time but this new proposal will benefit far more than it hinders!
Sometimes things have to evolve and go forward otherwise we’d all still be using
Windows 3.1 simply because a lot of time and effort once went into contributing
to it?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | rylie_aitch | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As a builder, these differences are often genuinely functionally and aesthetically
relevant. I would hate to have to ask every time, or risk getting a random
mix if I need a bunch of the same type. Any smooth slopes would stick out like
a sore thumb in a roof full of the other type, for example, and I should be able
to decide which I'm ordering without having to wait for several sellers to
manually check their inventory and get back to me.
And as a collector/reseller, it's hard enough as it is to get period-appropriate
parts to complete vintage sets. The less BrickLink cares about differences, the
more likely old sets in general are to contain parts that any collector could
easily tell were made 30+ years later.
I add grooveless tiles to orders whenever I can, and have specifically been building
a collection of those. Removing that distinction would mean I spend less money
on this platform (and, again, I'd hate to need the grooved version for an
urgent MOC and end up with a mix of the two!)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | here4bricks614 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:20 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rylie_aitch writes:
| | As a builder, these differences are often genuinely functionally and aesthetically
relevant. I would hate to have to ask every time, or risk getting a random
mix if I need a bunch of the same type. Any smooth slopes would stick out like
a sore thumb in a roof full of the other type, for example, and I should be able
to decide which I'm ordering without having to wait for several sellers to
manually check their inventory and get back to me.
And as a collector/reseller, it's hard enough as it is to get period-appropriate
parts to complete vintage sets. The less BrickLink cares about differences, the
more likely old sets in general are to contain parts that any collector could
easily tell were made 30+ years later.
I add grooveless tiles to orders whenever I can, and have specifically been building
a collection of those. Removing that distinction would mean I spend less money
on this platform (and, again, I'd hate to need the grooved version for an
urgent MOC and end up with a mix of the two!)
|
Agreed. The beauty of the current catalog system is that you can order a variant
with near-perfect confidence that you’re getting what you ordered.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | {snip] you can order a variant with near-perfect confidence that you’re getting what you ordered.
|
Please add "/s" when you post something sarcastic; some people may not
understand.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | here4bricks614 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | {snip] you can order a variant with near-perfect confidence that you’re getting what you ordered.
|
Please add "/s" when you post something sarcastic; some people may not
understand.
|
The only thing to be understood is that updating the catalog system is going
to disincentivize many buyers from spending money given the higher degree of
uncertainty. Luckily, I’ve just about finished ordering all of the replacement
parts I need. I guess I’d better make those last purchases before the end of
the month.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | {snip] you can order a variant with near-perfect confidence that you’re getting what you ordered.
|
Please add "/s" when you post something sarcastic; some people may not
understand.
|
The only thing to be understood is that updating the catalog system is going
to disincentivize many buyers from spending money given the higher degree of
uncertainty. Luckily, I’ve just about finished ordering all of the replacement
parts I need. I guess I’d better make those last purchases before the end of
the month.
|
The 3068a will remain available for those who really wish them Without Groove.
And pray to receive them really without groove
See: please make stats of what you receive if you bought the 43 New Lots of those
3004s:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=3004&colorID=12
Sincerely, I like (you noticed?) the new system, because:
* people who make mistakes inventorying will be the more often "corrected"
by the generic entry,
* people who want to make a super specific one still will be able to.
How could it be not better than right now?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | joesecc | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | {snip] you can order a variant with near-perfect confidence that you’re getting what you ordered.
|
Please add "/s" when you post something sarcastic; some people may not
understand.
|
The only thing to be understood is that updating the catalog system is going
to disincentivize many buyers from spending money given the higher degree of
uncertainty. Luckily, I’ve just about finished ordering all of the replacement
parts I need. I guess I’d better make those last purchases before the end of
the month.
|
The 3068a will remain available for those who really wish them Without Groove.
And pray to receive them really without groove
|
I often use this page to illustrate how unreliable BrickLink listings can be:
The ungrooved tile only came in 6 colors. Where did the rest of these listings
come from? 22 of the colors are simply wrong, and likely a high percentage of
the "known" colors are wrong too if we went to buy them.
|
This situation could be resolved by only allowing known colors to be listed for
a part. Anyone wanting to list any other color would have to list them as custom
items.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 17:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, joesecc writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | {snip] you can order a variant with near-perfect confidence that you’re getting what you ordered.
|
Please add "/s" when you post something sarcastic; some people may not
understand.
|
The only thing to be understood is that updating the catalog system is going
to disincentivize many buyers from spending money given the higher degree of
uncertainty. Luckily, I’ve just about finished ordering all of the replacement
parts I need. I guess I’d better make those last purchases before the end of
the month.
|
The 3068a will remain available for those who really wish them Without Groove.
And pray to receive them really without groove
|
I often use this page to illustrate how unreliable BrickLink listings can be:
The ungrooved tile only came in 6 colors. Where did the rest of these listings
come from? 22 of the colors are simply wrong, and likely a high percentage of
the "known" colors are wrong too if we went to buy them.
|
This situation could be resolved by only allowing known colors to be listed for
a part. Anyone wanting to list any other color would have to list them as custom
items.
|
Or even a "are you sure, as that doesn't exist" type checkbox. Although
I imagine a lot of people selling unknown coloured parts are bulk listing through
third party software.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rylie_aitch | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 18:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, joesecc writes:
| | This situation could be resolved by only allowing known colors to be listed for
a part. Anyone wanting to list any other color would have to list them as custom
items.
|
Strongly disagree there. "Known Colors" should really be renamed to "Known
in Sets", since that is all it shows. There are thousands of part-color combinations
that exist despite never being released in a set. Test strikes, factory
rejects, promotional parts, employee gifts, model shop Q-elements, certain Pick-a-Brick
parts, even parts from not-yet-inventoried sets. There's no reason a Yellowish
Green 2x4 brick should have to be Custom, when neither the color nor the part
is unrecognized by the catalog. When I'm building a MOC, I don't care
whether a part came in a set or not, only whether it exists and is being sold
by someone.
I think the suggestion of an "are you sure?" button (not a whole extra
screen to click through, just a required checkbox) is plenty when listing those
parts.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Carissamiss | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 15:46 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| +1
I’m all for having a main entry for the “generic” listing and a secondary for
the variant, as discussed with 3068b tiles. However, merging will make it difficult
for buyers who care about time-period authenticity to track down those parts.
Many sellers have made the effort to separate those out specifically to cater
to the vintage market. Like a few others, I also feel this opens the door for
more and more consolidation; where will the line be drawn? For example, a 48729a
is worth roughly 10 times the price of a 48729b. A standard grin blocked open
stud is worth more than a hollow stud. The price guide will have outliers for
the vintage variants that will skew the averages on the newer parts.
| | In Catalog, rylie_aitch writes:
… I should be able to decide which I'm ordering without having to wait for several sellers to
manually check their inventory and get back to me.
And as a collector/reseller, it's hard enough as it is to get period-appropriate
parts to complete vintage sets. The less BrickLink cares about differences, the
more likely old sets in general are to contain parts that any collector could
easily tell were made 30+ years later.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 18:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 149 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, rylie_aitch writes:
| | As a builder, these differences are often genuinely functionally and aesthetically
relevant. I would hate to have to ask every time, or risk getting a random
mix if I need a bunch of the same type. Any smooth slopes would stick out like
a sore thumb in a roof full of the other type, for example, and I should be able
to decide which I'm ordering without having to wait for several sellers to
manually check their inventory and get back to me.
And as a collector/reseller, it's hard enough as it is to get period-appropriate
parts to complete vintage sets. The less BrickLink cares about differences, the
more likely old sets in general are to contain parts that any collector could
easily tell were made 30+ years later.
I add grooveless tiles to orders whenever I can, and have specifically been building
a collection of those. Removing that distinction would mean I spend less money
on this platform (and, again, I'd hate to need the grooved version for an
urgent MOC and end up with a mix of the two!)
|
I appreciate your honesty about how this will affect the collector market.
When it comes to smooth slopes, the main problem is that there is very little
evidence there are actually 2 intended types. For some, there were smooth versions
for special uses:
[p=30474pb06]
The only thing we'll do here ^^^ is remove "smooth" from the Item
Name.
[p=3684b]
For these ^^^ , they were only in 8 sets out of 269, and they are alternates,
meaning we are not sure these sets always had them. By all accounts, they are
very rare, and you are probably going to have more issues with normal slopes
that have a range of roughness to deal with.
I look at this part as simply a quality control issue, similar to brittle Blue,
cadmium Yellow, or the fragile Reddish Brown from a few years ago. You may not
get 100% usable parts in every order, and smooth slopes is one of those reasons.
For grooveless tiles, there will still be an entry for them, but the main entry
will not say "with Groove". For your purposes, the "a" entries
should be enough.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 02:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | [p=3684b]
For these ^^^ , they were only in 8 sets out of 269, and they are alternates,
meaning we are not sure these sets always had them. By all accounts, they are
very rare, and you are probably going to have more issues with normal slopes
that have a range of roughness to deal with.
|
Make that 9 sets I just checked my copy of
and now it's bothering me that the replacement part I got for it is not a
smooth one unlike the other slopes in it which are original to it. :c
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:20 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This will mean that changing all affected present variations to a standard number,
if it happens; anything I already have sorted to present variation numbers need
sorting again if I wish to add a specific note to differentiate them ?
Look forward to that and all the complaints about having multiple entries for
the same item, already had comments (rightly) to that effect, something I’ve
done my best to reduce.
Not happy lumping all together as I’ve been asked for specific unrecognised variations
already.
Such things as shutters with edge, hollow pins on tiles or bricks etc.
I also feel it may be a stepping stone for ongoing future amalgamations of parts,
but this is just my view, many will and clearly do disagree.
As a buyer I will need to ask many questions of sellers to get the exact item
I want, something that some sellers here have voiced their views on not having
time to answer.
Some buyers have also posted here about the reluctance of some sellers to answer
questions, sometimes finding that it earns them a place on that sellers stoplist.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | This will mean that changing all affected present variations to a standard number,
if it happens; anything I already have sorted to present variation numbers need
sorting again if I wish to add a specific note to differentiate them ?
|
Now if I understood well (and assuming I've read 1000 lines already):
* you've got 1000x 3068b and 10x 3068a
* they'll be merged as 1010x 3068
* you can then later on separate them (if you wish!), create a lot with a Note
(?) for the 10x 3068a, and correcting the number for the 1000x 3068 remaining.
AFAI understood...
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| For all colours, for new and used.
In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | This will mean that changing all affected present variations to a standard number,
if it happens; anything I already have sorted to present variation numbers need
sorting again if I wish to add a specific note to differentiate them ?
|
Now if I understood well (and assuming I've read 1000 lines already):
* you've got 1000x 3068b and 10x 3068a
* they'll be merged as 1010x 3068
* you can then later on separate them (if you wish!), create a lot with a Note
(?) for the 10x 3068a, and correcting the number for the 1000x 3068 remaining.
AFAI understood...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 00:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | This will mean that changing all affected present variations to a standard number,
if it happens; anything I already have sorted to present variation numbers need
sorting again if I wish to add a specific note to differentiate them ?
|
Now if I understood well (and assuming I've read 1000 lines already):
* you've got 1000x 3068b and 10x 3068a
* they'll be merged as 1010x 3068
* you can then later on separate them (if you wish!), create a lot with a Note
(?) for the 10x 3068a, and correcting the number for the 1000x 3068 remaining.
AFAI understood...
|
Although it's a wrong example now we know 3068a and 3068b won't be merged....
If they would be merged to 3068 you will end up having 2 lots of 3068 in your
store.
So if you would add notes now:
- 10x 3068a note: without groove
- 1000x 3068b note: with groove
After the merge your store will show:
- 10x 3068 note: without groove
- 1000x 3068 note: with groove
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 00:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Although it's a wrong example now we know 3068a and 3068b won't be merged....
|
At this moment I didn't know.
| | After the merge your store will show:
- 10x 3068 note: without groove
- 1000x 3068 note: with groove
|
Not sure what you mean, but after 1st Feb, you'll have 3068 and (eventually)
another 3068 lot, different, with a note or a description for the rarest ones
like: "HTF!!! Without groove, guaranteed!" (and priced accordingly).
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 02:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | Although it's a wrong example now we know 3068a and 3068b won't be merged....
|
At this moment I didn't know.
| | After the merge your store will show:
- 10x 3068 note: without groove
- 1000x 3068 note: with groove
|
Not sure what you mean, but after 1st Feb, you'll have 3068 and (eventually)
another 3068 lot, different, with a note or a description for the rarest ones
like: "HTF!!! Without groove, guaranteed!" (and priced accordingly).
|
Russel confirmed that 3068 are not being merged, just renamed. You'll have
a lot of 3068, and a lot of 3068old.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Thanks for posting this, and for considering the input of users here. |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Emperor_Penguin | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Less mold-variant listings! 👏👏👏 |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tec | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 15:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please NO.
We actually need more/better handling of variants.
We should recognize more variants right now.
BL already behind Rebrickable on variant handling. behind. a lot. really.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 15:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
|
I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 15:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 19:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
Tooo much work!
"... entries that will have the word 'smooth' removed"
Why would you list the name changes for every part concerned?
People shouldn't rely on the exact Name of any part.
I can't believe anyone ever typed in Search "Slope 33 3 x 2 Smooth McDonald"
for example.
Or simply say something like "Some Parts will have their name partially
changed"?
Plus maybe it'll appear on Catalog item change page? So why bother?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 00:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 01:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
The list should be complete by tomorrow.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 12:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
The list should be complete by tomorrow.
|
Thank you very much; this will be extremely helpful for preparing.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 15:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
is there any way to download all the blocked versus hollow head entries without
manually checking each and every part or something similar
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 16:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 124 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
is there any way to download all the blocked versus hollow head entries without
manually checking each and every part or something similar
|
I'm planning to give a list to sellers - maybe in XML format that can be
uploaded into a wanted list and then checked against the stock levels in a store.
More to come on this - I'm still working on the Help page list.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
is there any way to download all the blocked versus hollow head entries without
manually checking each and every part or something similar
|
I'm planning to give a list to sellers - maybe in XML format that can be
uploaded into a wanted list and then checked against the stock levels in a store.
More to come on this - I'm still working on the Help page list.
|
Thanks! tho I may have explained it wrong as I was more so referring to the invenotires
of the figures that use them. for example all the inventories of minifugres so
if in the future i was to see if has a hollow or blocked open stud
head so that data isn't lost forever for those of use who want to see in
the future
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 17:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
is there any way to download all the blocked versus hollow head entries without
manually checking each and every part or something similar
|
I'm planning to give a list to sellers - maybe in XML format that can be
uploaded into a wanted list and then checked against the stock levels in a store.
More to come on this - I'm still working on the Help page list.
|
Thanks! tho I may have explained it wrong as I was more so referring to the invenotires
of the figures that use them. for example all the inventories of minifugres so
if in the future i was to see if has a hollow or blocked open stud
head so that data isn't lost forever for those of use who want to see in
the future
|
or will this data somehow be saved in a way that people can still see via a note
or some other means
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 18:54 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
is there any way to download all the blocked versus hollow head entries without
manually checking each and every part or something similar
|
I'm planning to give a list to sellers - maybe in XML format that can be
uploaded into a wanted list and then checked against the stock levels in a store.
More to come on this - I'm still working on the Help page list.
|
Thanks! tho I may have explained it wrong as I was more so referring to the invenotires
of the figures that use them. for example all the inventories of minifugres so
if in the future i was to see if has a hollow or blocked open stud
head so that data isn't lost forever for those of use who want to see in
the future
|
or will this data somehow be saved in a way that people can still see via a note
or some other means
|
but as a backup a list is now being worked on to preserve this data for the likely
event that once the change happens the inventory data for these figures will
be gone permanently or at least not easily accessible
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 19:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | but as a backup a list is now being worked on to preserve this data for the likely
event that once the change happens the inventory data for these figures will
be gone permanently or at least not easily accessible
|
Can you say this without taking breath in between?
That's what punctuation simulates.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 19:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | but as a backup a list is now being worked on to preserve this data for the likely
event that once the change happens the inventory data for these figures will
be gone permanently or at least not easily accessible
|
Can you say this without taking breath in between?
|
Yes i did read it in 1 breath when proof reading it and writing it
| | That's what punctuation simulates.
|
So I should try to breath more is what your saying
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ghyde | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 19:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | but as a backup a list is now being worked on to preserve this data for the likely
event that once the change happens the inventory data for these figures will
be gone permanently or at least not easily accessible
|
Can you say this without taking breath in between?
|
Yes i did read it in 1 breath when proof reading it and writing it
| | That's what punctuation simulates.
|
So I should try to breath more is what your saying
|
Just don't inhale too close to 1001bricks, the effects will get very weird
if you do!
Cheers ...
ghyde
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 19:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 19:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | but as a backup a list is now being worked on to preserve this data for the likely
event that once the change happens the inventory data for these figures will
be gone permanently or at least not easily accessible
|
Can you say this without taking breath in between?
|
Yes i did read it in 1 breath when proof reading it and writing it
|
That explains a lot! Brain, Oxygen and all these sorts of things...
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 19:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | but as a backup a list is now being worked on to preserve this data for the likely
event that once the change happens the inventory data for these figures will
be gone permanently or at least not easily accessible
|
Can you say this without taking breath in between?
|
Yes i did read it in 1 breath when proof reading it and writing it
|
That explains a lot! Brain, Oxygen and all these sorts of things...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 17:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
is there any way to download all the blocked versus hollow head entries without
manually checking each and every part or something similar
|
I'm planning to give a list to sellers - maybe in XML format that can be
uploaded into a wanted list and then checked against the stock levels in a store.
More to come on this - I'm still working on the Help page list.
|
Thanks! tho I may have explained it wrong as I was more so referring to the invenotires
of the figures that use them. for example all the inventories of minifugres so
if in the future i was to see if has a hollow or blocked open stud
head so that data isn't lost forever for those of use who want to see in
the future
|
You better start making your own list, because that data is going bye-bye.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 17:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
is there any way to download all the blocked versus hollow head entries without
manually checking each and every part or something similar
|
I'm planning to give a list to sellers - maybe in XML format that can be
uploaded into a wanted list and then checked against the stock levels in a store.
More to come on this - I'm still working on the Help page list.
|
Thanks! tho I may have explained it wrong as I was more so referring to the invenotires
of the figures that use them. for example all the inventories of minifugres so
if in the future i was to see if has a hollow or blocked open stud
head so that data isn't lost forever for those of use who want to see in
the future
|
You better start making your own list, because that data is going bye-bye.
|
mhm. I've been working on the list and hopefully ill have enough time in
between work to get it done by then which looks promising time at least for now.
but if i go to fast ill get in trouble for to many calls since I'm using
a combination of brickstore and directly on bricklink so I cant go to fast
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | TheK79 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:05 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | You better start making your own list, because that data is going bye-bye.
|
I guess, this data already is flawed. The different head-molds were used parallel
for several years, so technically hundreds if not thousands of figures would
need alternate versions and probably only very few combinations would really
be "wrong" (except those including the standard face).
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, TheK79 writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | You better start making your own list, because that data is going bye-bye.
|
I guess, this data already is flawed. The different head-molds were used parallel
for several years, so technically hundreds if not thousands of figures would
need alternate versions and probably only very few combinations would really
be "wrong" (except those including the standard face).
|
much of that is already catalogued by bricklink with notes letting users know
if a minifigure came with both versions but that is likely being wiped also
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | stecre | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Is there any update on this XML list please? Otherwise it's a somewhat painstaking
task of checking the store inventory against each one of the parts on that list.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
is there any way to download all the blocked versus hollow head entries without
manually checking each and every part or something similar
|
I'm planning to give a list to sellers - maybe in XML format that can be
uploaded into a wanted list and then checked against the stock levels in a store.
More to come on this - I'm still working on the Help page list.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BricksOfFaith | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 16:44 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| No. Please don’t. You aren’t thinking about vintage parts that will be merged
with its reissue, for instance the classic space minifgure parts. I don’t want
any parts from 2020. I only want vintage parts. Doing this takes away every single
guarantee that I’ll ever get one. “Specifying in the description “ is not going
to cut it because most sellers don’t put in descriptions. As a seller, I wouldn’t
waste my time honestly unless it’s a huge change in price. As a buyer I’m baffled
why this horrible decision is being made in the first place.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StarBrick | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 16:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal - Why? Did it break ? | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Although the effort is praise worthy, I am not sure what would happen if we do
NOT change anything.
I expect no decrease in accessabilitiy, functionality, security etc.
On the otherhand, executing the changes proposed, will probably affect the site
in one ore more ways that is not desirable. Past changes have been numerous in
effecting the system in ways no one expected. I do not want that to happen again.
Can you guarantee it won't?
So, if the current way things are
- didn't kill somebody
- didn't chase new members away
- didn't downed sales
- didn't broke the system
- didn't triggered law suits
why change it in the first place?
If it ain't broke, there's no need to fix anything!
@Russell, you started this outreaching post with:
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
The platform can not decide. The people using, running the platform
can. But as other stated, why isn't the input form the meetings weighed in
properly?
How many sellers are complaining about the 'extra work'? If you
organize your stock properly, it is no more work. So get your stock
organized people! ('extra work'?)
And a misunderstanding is a learning opportunity for a buyer as much for the
seller. So do not make it sound like it is a punishment ('issues'?).
How many buyers have entered complaints about variants? It's a community
for X sake! Sellers educate new members. It's part of our 'job' here.
And yes, some effort is required to obtain skills; that goes for every new environment
one steps into. No pain no gain.
I object fully for these changes to be made.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 17:28 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 18:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
It's a new version of your ID Pic???
Where's the UTLFold we all knew?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 19:47 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 19:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | | | Where's the UTLFold we all knew?
|
New year, new me
|
spooky!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 20:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | sounds like a skinwalker |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Dhobeck | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 17:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please don’t forget about the VINTAGE parts. This CHANGE will make it SUPER HARD
to get the older molds of parts. I don’t think I’m the only person who thinks
this way.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 18:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Dhobeck writes:
| | This CHANGE will make it SUPER HARD to get the older molds of parts.
|
No, you'll be able to search for the version you wish (and hope you'll
receive this one, which is another problem you've probably already encountered).
In short, just as of right now.
For the others or your "every day use" maybe, a "Tile 2x2" will
be the most recent/popular one (aka "with groove".
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | TheK79 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In short, just as of right now.
|
Nö. Currently you have a high change to actually receive the version you want
– at least in most cases; my attempts to get a 1x1 round plate in trans-neon
yellow for my color palette have created a stable supply of trans-neon green
ones… After they are merged however, the vast majority of sellers wouldn't
even check for the variant and just dump them into one lot.
Just try to find somebody selling "1x2 brick with solid pin, spruce mark
on top and no cross-support (which would be the correct version for the 1980s
and early 90s).
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | CCBricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 21:57 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is like being invited to a taffy pulling contest where everyone picks their
nose!
A giant mess in my opinion. Leave the catalog the way it is, block the variants
from being added going forward. Use the TLG's data from the released sets
and upload it to the Catalog. Since TLG in essence "bought" the catalog,
they should be able to upload upon release date.
Also, with the potential for "merging", how will this impact the years
of production? Some parts were produced for certain years, retired, then re-released
as a new variant. This may cause some confusion for folks trying to piece together
an older set and get a part that isn't the true and correct part.
I'm not a fan of merging the minifigure heads as figures sold with blocked
open stud may command more money than a recessed or vented stud. Yeah, it's
the same part, does the same job, but it's not "that" true minifigure.
This is something that should have been pushed a loooong time ago (at least 3
to six months). This action seems like a spur of the moment push. Maybe it's
just me.
After reading 122+ posts, my eyes started seeing grooves!
Brian
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 21:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | After reading 122+ posts, my eyes started seeing grooves!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 22:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, CCBricks writes:
| | This is like being invited to a taffy pulling contest where everyone picks their
nose!
A giant mess in my opinion. Leave the catalog the way it is,
|
I'd much rather see the catalog cleaned up than left as a giant mess!
| |
I'm not a fan of merging the minifigure heads as figures sold with blocked
open stud may command more money than a recessed or vented stud. Yeah, it's
the same part, does the same job, but it's not "that" true minifigure.
|
I can honestly say that I have sold thousands of minfigures across multiple platforms
and never once been called up on the head type supplied. I've always supplied
my minifigs with whichever stud type I have stocked/available without even checking
whether it matches with bricklinks so called "official" minifig entry!
The only time I've ever been called out is where someone thinks a blocked
open stud head is fake simply because it doesn't show a Lego logo.
Loose heads are a different story as the stud type is more clearly specified
and so some buyers will expect what you send to match the description hence I
reluctantly try to match/sort in line with the catalog (Hopefully for not much
longer!)
I've also yet to really experience any specific stud type adding any extra
value to my minifigs. Maybe a little extra value specified to individually sold
head parts maybe but not against a whole collective minifigure!
We're this to add any real value I'm sure we'd see a lot more people
on Bricklink and other sites advertising "Minifig comes with Blocked Open
Stud head!" and what not but it appears to be not even significant enough
for a mention by anyone really?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 22:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I 100% approve. The proliferation of all these non-helpful variants only hurts
buyers and sellers alike. I also urge you to keep going with this- example, who
gives a rip how many grooves an ice axe has in the handle?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | rtzx9r | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 23:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I 100% approve. The proliferation of all these non-helpful variants only hurts
buyers and sellers alike. I also urge you to keep going with this- example, who
gives a rip how many grooves an ice axe has in the handle?
|
Terrible idea Russel. Terrible.
Just because “many” buyers and sellers here mix up the variants doesn’t mean
ALL users should be punished. It costs nothing to keep the variants as they are.
A seller can lump them all together and make a note in the comments it may include
a, b, c variants. But if I want a specific variant, I need to ask a seller and
hope they respond. Otherwise I’m buying elsewhere to ensure I get what I need
to complete an set from the 80’s.
This dumbs down the catalog, the site, and the ability for us sellers to meet
the intended needs of the buyers, even if not all of them care of the variations.
Please reconsider this. I’m sure there are bigger issues in need of BL staff
to focus on.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 00:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Please reconsider this. I’m sure there are bigger issues in need of BL staff
to focus on.
|
Bigger? Of course.
But for 10 years now, we here tried to manage (LOL LOL LOL) versions...
At one moment I decided to put a warning in the description (+ in Terms), like
screen copy below.
But later on (not talking about this part, but more generally) I ordered the
"b" version, received the "a" - or worse a mix of both - but
I really can't check a bag of 100 or 1000 one by one.
So I uploaded them as "b" or "a" or... Undetermined?
Then we parted out 20 Sets supposed to have such version, which Inventory was...
not exact, or LEGO production ermmmmmm variable.
Appeared Duplicate lots - with or without this "Warning!" description.
Or different lots/versions, but which are in reality the same
Or mixed in the same bag in stock!
BUT at a different price, because the "a" is more expensive than the
"b", of course.
This isn't human!!!
Remember we're talking about cents (euro, dollar) here - apart some SW Minifigure
parts version, it's zilch.
When you've got 10K/50K (?) of those parts with various variants and since
you've never found a whole week to check every bit - while buyers simply
don't care - then you simply give up. What we did.
I have to admit - for those, I'm not sure what I sold/sell, and what's
been bought.
But in 16 years I received maybe one (1) e-mail complaining (and we eventually
found the proper version for this person).
I *do* understand and support people who try to restore:
(it's a precious Set in fact, AFAIK)
... and I took the time to search and to (sometimes) find the proper bricks from
this era (in personal collection) - but again, this is 1/20000 orders.
What's excellent in this BrickLink solution is that (already said):
* it'll auto-correct newbie sellers who uploaded "3068a Tile Without
Groove" for their 2024 SW Set part out,
* it'll still permit to search, either by reference or description, exact
super-specific version.
I really can't find a better way, and for sure it's far better than every
seller managing the problem differently.
PS: where's this T-Shirt "I heart BrickLink"? Please take my money!!!
No kidding, it's a huge relief.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 09:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| |
I 100% approve. The proliferation of all these non-helpful variants only hurts
buyers and sellers alike. I also urge you to keep going with this- example, who
gives a rip how many grooves an ice axe has in the handle?
|
Alot of people do. Do you restore older sets?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 16:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | who gives a rip how many grooves an ice axe has in the handle?
|
I do.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 17:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | who gives a rip how many grooves an ice axe has in the handle?
|
I do.
|
same
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | pcthurman | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 02:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
|
I have read through the entirety of this subject, here are my opinions...
Do not change anything that has to do with minifigures! People who buy them OR
parts of them OR sets put a lot of importance on the minifigures being authentically
correct. I appreciate that solid stud heads will continue to have their own entry
in the catalog however it is annoying to order blocked open heads and receive
hollow stud heads instead and I can only imagine the nightmare of what this will
do to minifigure torsos.
Story time:
20 years ago, this coming April, I did a search of the internet looking for a
resource to buy LEGO by the single piece and Bricklink came up in my search.
It sounded the most promising for the business I wanted to start and so I clicked
that link to check it out. Imagine, if you will, how delighted I was to find
a site that had thousands of LEGO set inventories that I could access, and thousands
of shops to shop at with single parts, instructions, sets (both new and used),
and a chat room full of people that could answer my questions or keep me company
while working LEGO in my office! Of course, I cannot forget to mention the most
amazing catalog.
Bricklink is the reason my business is viable today. I rely on the catalog variations
to find the correct parts for the sets I need to finish.
I consider myself old school when it comes to Bricklink and have had to contact
shops to find out if they have the correct variations. Recently, 2020-2024, it
has become very frustrating when shop owners will not answer the question OR
worse yet, insist they do have the correct period piece and when it arrives,
you discover it is in fact incorrect or you get blacklisted for having the audacity
to ask a question in the first place. It should not be the buyer's job to
teach the shop owner about variations and yet I find myself doing this quite
often.
So, it is not JUST collector's that this will be affecting, it is also those
of us that use Bricklink to do as I have done for 20 years, refurbishing LEGO
sets.
This site was designed for the LEGO collector to be able to find the part(s)
they needed to complete sets, projects, and MOCS and to be able to discuss anything
LEGO with other people who love LEGO.
I feel like that vision is being lost.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 02:37 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, pcthurman writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
|
I have read through the entirety of this subject, here are my opinions...
Do not change anything that has to do with minifigures! People who buy them OR
parts of them OR sets put a lot of importance on the minifigures being authentically
correct. I appreciate that solid stud heads will continue to have their own entry
in the catalog however it is annoying to order blocked open heads and receive
hollow stud heads instead and I can only imagine the nightmare of what this will
do to minifigure torsos.
Story time:
20 years ago, this coming April, I did a search of the internet looking for a
resource to buy LEGO by the single piece and Bricklink came up in my search.
It sounded the most promising for the business I wanted to start and so I clicked
that link to check it out. Imagine, if you will, how delighted I was to find
a site that had thousands of LEGO set inventories that I could access, and thousands
of shops to shop at with single parts, instructions, sets (both new and used),
and a chat room full of people that could answer my questions or keep me company
while working LEGO in my office! Of course, I cannot forget to mention the most
amazing catalog.
Bricklink is the reason my business is viable today. I rely on the catalog variations
to find the correct parts for the sets I need to finish.
I consider myself old school when it comes to Bricklink and have had to contact
shops to find out if they have the correct variations. Recently, 2020-2024, it
has become very frustrating when shop owners will not answer the question OR
worse yet, insist they do have the correct period piece and when it arrives,
you discover it is in fact incorrect or you get blacklisted for having the audacity
to ask a question in the first place. It should not be the buyer's job to
teach the shop owner about variations and yet I find myself doing this quite
often.
So, it is not JUST collector's that this will be affecting, it is also those
of us that use Bricklink to do as I have done for 20 years, refurbishing LEGO
sets.
This site was designed for the LEGO collector to be able to find the part(s)
they needed to complete sets, projects, and MOCS and to be able to discuss anything
LEGO with other people who love LEGO.
I feel like that vision is being lost.
|
Very well put
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 02:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, pcthurman writes:
| | […]
It should not be the buyer's job to
teach the shop owner about variations and yet I find myself doing this quite
often.
|
Sellers should take an exam or be certified or something!
Maybe something like a “collector-friendly” badge?
| | So, it is not JUST collector's that this will be affecting, it is also those
of us that use Bricklink to do as I have done for 20 years, refurbishing LEGO
sets.
|
Well, you may not consider yourself a collector but you’re certainly refurbishing
LEGO sets for collectors. For member-categorisation purposes, you’re a collector,
a proxy-collector
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 05:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Do not change anything that has to do with minifigures! People who buy them OR
parts of them OR sets put a lot of importance on the minifigures being authentically
correct. I appreciate that solid stud heads will continue to have their own entry
in the catalog however it is annoying to order blocked open heads and receive
hollow stud heads instead and I can only imagine the nightmare of what this will
do to minifigure torsos.
|
The problem is that some figures were issued with different types of heads, possibly
location dependent. For example
had both b and c type heads. I think I was the one that first reported
this, when a buyer complained that I had sent an incorrect minifigure due to
the head. Presumably the poly bags I had were produced in the same location as
the Haunted House set, as that has the otherwise exclusive c version of the head.
In this case, the hollow one should be rarer, having only come in one large set.
Which is the authentically correct one for that figure? Should there be a difference
in price in the otherwise equivalent heads and should buyers need to search for
both or add both to wants lists? And how many buyers care? To me, these heads
are contemporary as they come from the same one year theme and so there shouldn't
be any difference between them, apart from they were probably produced in different
factories. The 'correct' head is then determined by who inventories the
set first. Even with the note, buyers are unlikely to be aware of the different
heads.
Given the number of plants LEGO has these days, it wouldn't surprise me if
there are other similar examples of unintentionally different inventories that
might not have been noticed where sets have been packed in different factories
for different countries.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 06:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, pcthurman writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
|
I have read through the entirety of this subject, here are my opinions...
Do not change anything that has to do with minifigures! People who buy them OR
parts of them OR sets put a lot of importance on the minifigures being authentically
correct. I appreciate that solid stud heads will continue to have their own entry
in the catalog however it is annoying to order blocked open heads and receive
hollow stud heads instead and I can only imagine the nightmare of what this will
do to minifigure torsos.
|
Honestly most people really don't care as much as you may be led to believe
and those that do care will still manage to find ways of seeking out what they
need
| | Bricklink is the reason my business is viable today. I rely on the catalog variations
to find the correct parts for the sets I need to finish.
|
If the system doesn't cater so well for these minor variants, overall buyer
expectations will be lowered across the site to the point that you may no longer
need to put so much time and effort into sourcing these specific variants in
the first place!
| | I consider myself old school when it comes to Bricklink and have had to contact
shops to find out if they have the correct variations. Recently, 2020-2024, it
has become very frustrating when shop owners will not answer the question OR
worse yet, insist they do have the correct period piece and when it arrives,
you discover it is in fact incorrect or you get blacklisted for having the audacity
to ask a question in the first place.
It should not be the buyer's job to teach the shop owner about variations and yet I find myself doing this quite often.
|
I think you've just pointed out how problematic the current system of separating
variants can be for many sellers? The system needs to be simplified as many buyers
rely too heavily on the expectation that all sellers will have/should have the
same variant knowledge. With variant notes left in the comments buyers will have
more certainty over which sellers can cater for their needs in many cases without
even needing to ask questions!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 06:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 104 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I sympathize with people that are against but I personally support this idea,
which I think is long overdue.
Let's face it, most buyers don't care, and those few who care will get
their variant parts still.
In fact, and the beauty of this proposal is that, they will be more guaranteed
to get the correct variant than they are getting nowadays. So in my view
it's a win-win situation.
I hope that the list will go a little farther to include some examples:
Flat End/Top vs Round End/Top:
Grooves in hinges:
I have one question though: When 3747b and 3747a are merged, will they be merged
in my inventory as one single lot even when I have comments noting the correct
variation on 3747a, or will be the two lots separated still? And if they are
lumped in the same lot, what can I do to save the quantities of the rare variant
already confirmed?
Thank you BrickLink!
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 12:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | Let's face it, most buyers don't care
|
This.
| | and those few who care will get their variant parts still.
|
You're darn right Paulo.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 12:54 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 160 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | I sympathize with people that are against but I personally support this idea,
which I think is long overdue.
Let's face it, most buyers don't care, and those few who care will get
their variant parts still.
In fact, and the beauty of this proposal is that, they will be more guaranteed
to get the correct variant than they are getting nowadays. So in my view
it's a win-win situation.
I hope that the list will go a little farther to include some examples:
Flat End/Top vs Round End/Top:
Grooves in hinges:
I have one question though: When 3747b and 3747a are merged, will they be merged
in my inventory as one single lot even when I have comments noting the correct
variation on 3747a, or will be the two lots separated still? And if they are
lumped in the same lot, what can I do to save the quantities of the rare variant
already confirmed?
Thank you BrickLink!
|
When catalog entries are merged, they do not combine lots in stores or wanted
lists. So separate lots will be retained with whichever note is attached. Only
the Item Name and Item Number of the item will change.
Regarding the other suggestions, we can look at those for later. But the flat
top versus round top is a functional difference and also a cosmetic difference
on handheld accessories. So there is little chance we would ever make a change
there.
The hinges with groove are there because we always distinguish groove as a rule.
But these were an exception to begin with because the groove didn't go all
the way around the part. The other issue with these is that the newest version
does NOT have the groove, which means the groove was not seen as an improvement
worth keeping.
But I would like to keep the discussion only on the 10 groups of parts identified
in the Help Page. One of the concerns for people on the collector side of the
argument is that these merges of minor variants may lead to merges of more significant
variants later on, maybe with some parts they really care about. There is no
need to spook people at this point over things that are likely not to happen.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 13:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
When catalog entries are merged, they do not combine lots in stores or wanted
lists.
|
Oh great, I forgot about that.
Just waiting for all the threads “Help! I can’t edit my WL!” “What does ‘Only
one item/color combination’ mean?”
😱
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 17:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
When catalog entries are merged, they do not combine lots in stores or wanted
lists.
|
Oh great, I forgot about that.
Just waiting for all the threads “Help! I can’t edit my WL!” “What does ‘Only
one item/color combination’ mean?”
😱
|
Yes. This is going to break a *lot* of wanted lists.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 09:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
When catalog entries are merged, they do not combine lots in stores or wanted
lists.
|
Oh great, I forgot about that.
Just waiting for all the threads “Help! I can’t edit my WL!” “What does ‘Only
one item/color combination’ mean?”
😱
|
Yes. This is going to break a *lot* of wanted lists.
|
:/ That's not comforting.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 10:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | […]
| | Yes. This is going to break a *lot* of wanted lists.
|
:/ That's not comforting.
|
To be clear, the problem will appear when you have two (or more) variants of
the same part in the same colour in the same WL.
The merging won’t totally break your WL. But you won’t be able to edit ANY WL
untill ALL the problems have been resolved (that is, until you delete the doublets).
There’ll be a message on your WLs page, and one again if you try to edit a WL.
I don’t think there’s that many people with both variants of the same parts in
the same colour in the same WL.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | […]
| | Yes. This is going to break a *lot* of wanted lists.
|
:/ That's not comforting.
|
To be clear, the problem will appear when you have two (or more) variants of
the same part in the same colour in the same WL.
The merging won’t totally break your WL. But you won’t be able to edit ANY WL
untill ALL the problems have been resolved (that is, until you delete the doublets).
There’ll be a message on your WLs page, and one again if you try to edit a WL.
I don’t think there’s that many people with both variants of the same parts in
the same colour in the same WL.
|
Sometimes people do that as if they need a head and don’t care which they get
they may add both the list and get whatever pops up first
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 12:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
| | I don’t think there’s that many people with both variants of the same parts in
the same colour in the same WL.
|
Sometimes people do that as if they need a head and don’t care which they get
they may add both the list and get whatever pops up first
|
Yep.
But I don’t think that happens with the other parts. And I sure hope there’s
not too many of them doing that with heads (or torsos) and that not too many
of them won’t understand what happened or how to fix it
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
| | I don’t think there’s that many people with both variants of the same parts in
the same colour in the same WL.
|
Sometimes people do that as if they need a head and don’t care which they get
they may add both the list and get whatever pops up first
|
Yep.
But I don’t think that happens with the other parts. And I sure hope there’s
not too many of them doing that with heads (or torsos) and that not too many
of them won’t understand what happened or how to fix it
|
At least your fun on the forum will get a uptick
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
At least your fun on the forum will get a uptick
|
It’ll be a copy-pasta feast! 🍝🍝🍝🍝
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:20 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | […]
At least your fun on the forum will get a uptick
|
It’ll be a copy-pasta feast! 🍝🍝🍝🍝
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 17:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | […]
| | Yes. This is going to break a *lot* of wanted lists.
|
:/ That's not comforting.
|
To be clear, the problem will appear when you have two (or more) variants of
the same part in the same colour in the same WL.
The merging won’t totally break your WL. But you won’t be able to edit ANY WL
untill ALL the problems have been resolved (that is, until you delete the doublets).
There’ll be a message on your WLs page, and one again if you try to edit a WL.
I don’t think there’s that many people with both variants of the same parts in
the same colour in the same WL.
|
At the contrary, it happens often!
Just received an Wanted-List XML tonight, 22:00 Paris Time, not edited not cheated,
imported in BrickStore. See why versions are hell for regular builders (this
is a recent MOC):
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 01:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
At the contrary, it happens often!
Just received an Wanted-List XML tonight, 22:00 Paris Time, not edited not cheated,
imported in BrickStore. See why versions are hell for regular builders (this
is a recent MOC):
|
Oh, dang. Sloppy designers! 😤
Maybe I’ll take a vacation on February 👻
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 05:20 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | When catalog entries are merged, they do not combine lots in stores or wanted
lists. So separate lots will be retained with whichever note is attached. Only
the Item Name and Item Number of the item will change.
|
Sounds great, thank you for the quick and clear clarification!
| | Regarding the other suggestions, we can look at those for later. But the flat
top versus round top is a functional difference and also a cosmetic difference
on handheld accessories. So there is little chance we would ever make a change
there.
The hinges with groove are there because we always distinguish groove as a rule.
But these were an exception to begin with because the groove didn't go all
the way around the part. The other issue with these is that the newest version
does NOT have the groove, which means the groove was not seen as an improvement
worth keeping.
But I would like to keep the discussion only on the 10 groups of parts identified
in the Help Page. One of the concerns for people on the collector side of the
argument is that these merges of minor variants may lead to merges of more significant
variants later on, maybe with some parts they really care about. There is no
need to spook people at this point over things that are likely not to happen.
|
Roger that
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | musen2100 | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 06:46 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
I like this change as long as you don't merge significant parts such as the
jumper plates.
How will this affect selling complete sets?
If for instance I am selling a used set (as complete) containing
[P=30474,85]
Would I then be allowed to sell it with the newer
As those parts would be merged?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
Other useless variants for future consideration:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 08:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Other useless variants for future consideration:
|
Yes, please!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 11:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| There are many other pairs too, where you essentially need both of them in hand
to tell the difference. These ones often get me ...
I doubt the difference is intentional.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | There are many other pairs too, where you essentially need both of them in hand
to tell the difference. These ones often get me ...
I doubt the difference is intentional.
|
Agreed- almost imperceptible differences like this aren't worth the overhead!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WhiteHorseMatt | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | There are many other pairs too, where you essentially need both of them in hand
to tell the difference. These ones often get me ...
I doubt the difference is intentional.
|
Agreed- almost imperceptible differences like this aren't worth the overhead!
|
That's always been the rub though, hasn't it. What are imperceptible
or irrelevant to some are critical for exactness or vintage status to others.
Where to draw the line is challenging.
I'm not personally very bothered about variants when it comes to my personal
bricks, but I'm as careful as possible to distinguish in my store. My concern
is that the completeness and specificity of the catalogue is really Bricklink's
USP and what sets it aside from other market places. I fear that this may become
lost.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | Agreed- almost imperceptible differences like this aren't worth the overhead!
|
That's always been the rub though, hasn't it. What are imperceptible
or irrelevant to some are critical for exactness or vintage status to others.
Where to draw the line is challenging.
|
In the case of the swords, I imagine it is just the location they were made in.
It isn't old vs new or anything like that, as they overlapped for a significant
time period. I wondered if it was that the CMF would have one version made in
China and the other version would be made in Europe or Mexico for non-CMF sets,
but that doesn't seem to be the case. It might also be that some of them
were not catalogued correctly when inventorying sets, although I have not checked
them.
When it comes to having to have both in hand to be able to see which is which,
you can essentially give up identifying one on its own.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WhiteHorseMatt writes:
| |
That's always been the rub though, hasn't it. What are imperceptible
or irrelevant to some are critical for exactness or vintage status to others.
Where to draw the line is challenging.
|
Well yes and also where to draw the line in terms of accountability towards sellers
as only a few months ago I had a buyer issue on Brickowl for those very same
swords where the buyer claims I sent the wrong variant. Fortunately I had a mix
of both versions to compare and sent replacements but I did also go on to explain
to the buyer that my store settings are set at "Does not differentiate Mold
Variations" and therefore always best to check and ask in these situations
to which I get a snarky response back that I should have listed them correctly
in the first place and a Neutral for my best efforts!
The first and only neutral on either of these platforms!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 16:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | There are many other pairs too, where you essentially need both of them in hand
to tell the difference. These ones often get me ...
I doubt the difference is intentional.
|
The LEGO renders are intentionally different and look exactly like the real-world
pieces, and they were given different design numbers. That is about all of the
information I need to be sure that the difference is intentional. Whether the
difference is of *importance* is another matter entirely, but that should be
up to each of us. Thus, a functional site should be created to cater to all levels
of importance when it comes to variants.
Although I am in agreement with many of the changes being suggested in the OP,
this current situation is just another rearranging of deck chairs (to quote someone
who is missed here) instead of doing the proper thing which is creating a functional
site that would work for everyone without ever needing to get into discussions
about each and every variant or "deck chair" situations like this.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | CBak | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 08:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Rather than merging everything into one category, could we instead use the part#
and part#old nomenclature. Notes do not carry over to the price guide, so at
least this will help keep collector items from skewing the regular price guide.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 09:14 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, CBak writes:
| | Rather than merging everything into one category, could we instead use the part#
and part#old nomenclature. Notes do not carry over to the price guide, so at
least this will help keep collector items from skewing the regular price guide.
|
That shouldn't make any difference for Lego/Bricklink either.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 09:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 102 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hello,
I think one point I would like to emphasize is that many of these variants (while
not being particularly important as to function or aesthetics) DO serve the purpose
of identifying the age of a part. The 3747a slopes have such a different feel
and texture (not to mention color) from more modern versions that I can tell
most apart before checking for the connections.
Reducing the ability for buyers to get older parts, while increasing the difficulty
for sellers to list them, is not an advantage to the site. It's also a huge
hit to the accuracy of our Catalog.
I also am worried about all the comparison images that would need to be changed
or updated. We can't edit existing images that people have submitted, and
so many would need to be replaced. There is a difference when I make an image
comparing two Catalog entries to one showing variants within a Catalog entry.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | donja_nl | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 15:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think it is not a good idea.
The promotional Duplo Bricks are sold to buyers that collect these special bricks.
They are interested in special variants. Sellers have invested in them. It would
be very disapointing when these are merged.
[P=76371pb111]
I also agree with others that we should keep the variants as part of sets and
that there can be a general entry for those who doesn't care about the variants.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 15:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | those wont be merged tho as they have different prints (centre verse center) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 15:44 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | those wont be merged tho as they have different prints (centre verse center)
|
I guess “with Bottom Tube” will be removed though. That’ll make it more difficult
to see what’s the difference between the entries.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 17:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, donja_nl writes:
| | I think it is not a good idea.
The promotional Duplo Bricks are sold to buyers that collect these special bricks.
They are interested in special variants. Sellers have invested in them. It would
be very disapointing when these are merged.
[P=76371pb111]
I also agree with others that we should keep the variants as part of sets and
that there can be a general entry for those who doesn't care about the variants.
|
Those two above should *not* be merged as they have completely different prints
-- "Center" versus "Centre". In fact, that better be something
that is being looked out for when this process takes place as not all DUPLO bricks
that seem to be the same except for the mold are the same.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bagelboybugle | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 17:34 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
I'm a little out of touch with this so apologies if I've missed something.
Back in my selling days I got very frustrated with the amount of irrelevant variation
catalogued, especially when parting out sets or trying to buy parts. I fully
respect the need to find the exact variation when restoring a set or seeking
a specific aesthetic but when you're just building fire engines for your
kids you really do not care which variant you get, you just want to know where
you can buy 40 of them from the same place, even if that is 10 of a, 25 of b
and 5 of c. Perhaps where variants need to remain, undetermined from a wanted
list can calculate and aggregate if the user selects a box for "find all
variants"? that way a user can find someone who has 20 of one and 20 of the
other just by telling the system they need 40 and they don't mind which they
get.
Seats are a great example of something I would have bought more of when I was
building stuff had there been one product rather than two. There's a balance
between technical correctness (which is difficult because mold changes are often
gradual and more than one variant of a part can appear in some sets, giving significant
value to the undetermined variant being the right one to use when it is in fact
not known if a specific variant is intended at design or manufacture).
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 19:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 153 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I spent thousands of dollars tracking down 32064c for you. You are welcome.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | LMAinFLA | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 21:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Sorry if all this has been addressed already, but there were over 200 responses
when I found this thread and I didn't have the energy to plow through all
of them. So here are my questions and comments.
Was a focus group of buyers and/or sellers brought in on the decision making
process? If not, why? It would seem to me, as a former database engineer and
programmer, that any database loses a good part--if not all of--it's
usefulness if it doesn't serve the purposes of the end user. Also, adding
information about the item's attributes (as opposed to condition, completeness,
etc.) into a long text/memo field is not only additional work put on the sellers,
it slows downs queries and increases the amount of resources necessary to run
those queries, which in turn, slows down overall server response time. I really
don't see this as a win for anybody. Input should have been asked of sellers
and buyers to help determine at least a short list of variants that buyers find
are the most important.
While I can see that some of the variants might no longer need to be distinguished
from one another, there are going to be certain ones that AFoLs and sellers will
always want to be able to find easily in order to produce an accurate recreation
of classic sets. Plus the value of vintage pieces can vary widely in value from
their modern counterparts. Lumping such parts together would make the 6 mo average
sales data nearly (if not completely) useless.
Another point for consideration: how many buyers and sellers do you think might
abandon the platform for other venues where those distinctions are still available?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 00:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, LMAinFLA writes:
| | Sorry if all this has been addressed already, but there were over 200 responses
when I found this thread and I didn't have the energy to plow through all
of them. So here are my questions and comments.
Was a focus group of buyers and/or sellers brought in on the decision making
process? If not, why? It would seem to me, as a former database engineer and
programmer, that any database loses a good part--if not all of--it's
usefulness if it doesn't serve the purposes of the end user. Also, adding
information about the item's attributes (as opposed to condition, completeness,
etc.) into a long text/memo field is not only additional work put on the sellers,
it slows downs queries and increases the amount of resources necessary to run
those queries, which in turn, slows down overall server response time. I really
don't see this as a win for anybody. Input should have been asked of sellers
and buyers to help determine at least a short list of variants that buyers find
are the most important.
|
I'm very confident that the decision to merge these variants will be appreciated
by the vast majority of the platform's users. We've worked with these
parts and these entries for years and have already taken in high levels of input
from the community in many different forms, including groups of buyers, sellers,
and builders.
| | While I can see that some of the variants might no longer need to be distinguished
from one another, there are going to be certain ones that AFoLs and sellers will
always want to be able to find easily in order to produce an accurate recreation
of classic sets. Plus the value of vintage pieces can vary widely in value from
their modern counterparts. Lumping such parts together would make the 6 mo average
sales data nearly (if not completely) useless.
Another point for consideration: how many buyers and sellers do you think might
abandon the platform for other venues where those distinctions are still available?
|
Pretty close to zero. We've had a few people leave who didn't like decisions
being made in the catalog, and that is unfortunate.
But when it comes to marketplaces for LEGO parts, BrickLink is mainstream, large,
and very comprehensive. I consider this correction of variants to be like pruning
a garden. The end result will be a more beautiful and useful environment. There
are still PLENTY of variants left to keep even the most ardent collectors busy.
And more will be added in the future!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Singidunum | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:34 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | There are still PLENTY of variants left to keep even the most ardent collectors busy.
|
The fact that variants of some other parts will still exist in BL Catalog does
not in any way prove that removing this batch of variants is justified and useful.
If your favorite grocery store starts packing, for example, all brands/types
of cheese in the exact same packaging and with same name (because "they are
too similar" ), and if they do that also with all brands/types of coffee,
would you feel better if they tell you "There are still PLENTY of variants
of toilet paper and apples left in our store to keep you busy"?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | I consider this correction of variants to be like pruning
a garden. The end result will be a more beautiful and useful environment.
|
For me, the end result of these changes will be less useful environment.
Part/mold variants are very important for me, especially when completing old
sets. Until now, I was able to order specific variants of parts that I need for
a specific set (and if seller makes a mistake and sends wrong variants, I had
ground to ask for a replacement or refund for those parts).
With these changes, I will never know which variant I will receive if I order
those affected parts (and there will be no more grounds for a refund or replacement
if I receive variants that I don't need).
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 21:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
|
Are notes searchable in any way? Because I don't know them to be. This is
kind of moot if you're asking for us to manually look through potentially
hundreds of shops.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 06:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
|
Are notes searchable in any way? Because I don't know them to be. This is
kind of moot if you're asking for us to manually look through potentially
hundreds of shops.
|
Yes, they are searchable:
https://www.bricklink.com/searchAdvanced.asp?utm_content=subnav
|
No, they are NOT searchable by absence of a standard.
Since you are proposing to move structured catalog information into an unstructured
comments field you are in reality removing the practical ways to list and find
parts.
Russell, I am impressed by how much effort and motivation you put into this idea
and into the involvement with this thread, but am very disappointed that you
don't actually listen to what is being said by most of the most seasoned
forum contributors, which is: (1) Yes, how the site handles variants needs to
be tackled, but also (2) No, merging specific parts is not the way to go.
Please let the developers have a look at the technical suggestions made in this
thread before you degrade the catalog.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 15:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 159 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
|
Are notes searchable in any way? Because I don't know them to be. This is
kind of moot if you're asking for us to manually look through potentially
hundreds of shops.
|
Yes, they are searchable:
https://www.bricklink.com/searchAdvanced.asp?utm_content=subnav
|
No, they are NOT searchable by absence of a standard.
Since you are proposing to move structured catalog information into an unstructured
comments field you are in reality removing the practical ways to list and find
parts.
Russell, I am impressed by how much effort and motivation you put into this idea
and into the involvement with this thread, but am very disappointed that you
don't actually listen to what is being said by most of the most seasoned
forum contributors, which is: (1) Yes, how the site handles variants needs to
be tackled, but also (2) No, merging specific parts is not the way to go.
Please let the developers have a look at the technical suggestions made in this
thread before you degrade the catalog.
|
It depends on the variant. Personally, I would rather people NOT continue to
separate these variants after the merge. But as a concession, they can use the
notes for a certain degree of visibility.
I have read everything in this thread and I've read the whole BrickLink forum
for the last 15 years - pretty much every last post, especially for catalog related
subjects. In this thread I haven't seen any new arguments on either side.
I don't want a technical solution where everybody chooses for themselves
the variants that are important to them. We can have a middle ground for certain
kinds of variants where people have a choice, but as a platform we need to move
forward together. The "BrickLink Way" means we care about functional
variants and cosmetic appeal, and everybody needs to agree with this.
Historical variants are fine as long as they don't disrupt the mainstream,
and that is the essence of what is being corrected here. For example, there is
nothing fundamentally wrong with distinguishing a vented stud. But for parts
like the 2 x 2 Dome:
[p=3262]
it is a very common part and it's part of the mainstream group of basic elements.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 20:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
|
Are notes searchable in any way? Because I don't know them to be. This is
kind of moot if you're asking for us to manually look through potentially
hundreds of shops.
|
Yes, they are searchable:
https://www.bricklink.com/searchAdvanced.asp?utm_content=subnav
|
No, they are NOT searchable by absence of a standard.
Since you are proposing to move structured catalog information into an unstructured
comments field you are in reality removing the practical ways to list and find
parts.
Russell, I am impressed by how much effort and motivation you put into this idea
and into the involvement with this thread, but am very disappointed that you
don't actually listen to what is being said by most of the most seasoned
forum contributors, which is: (1) Yes, how the site handles variants needs to
be tackled, but also (2) No, merging specific parts is not the way to go.
Please let the developers have a look at the technical suggestions made in this
thread before you degrade the catalog.
|
It depends on the variant. Personally, I would rather people NOT continue to
separate these variants after the merge. But as a concession, they can use the
notes for a certain degree of visibility.
I have read everything in this thread and I've read the whole BrickLink forum
for the last 15 years - pretty much every last post, especially for catalog related
subjects. In this thread I haven't seen any new arguments on either side.
I don't want a technical solution where everybody chooses for themselves
the variants that are important to them. We can have a middle ground for certain
kinds of variants where people have a choice, but as a platform we need to move
forward together. The "BrickLink Way" means we care about functional
variants and cosmetic appeal, and everybody needs to agree with this.
|
If all of this is coming down from the top brass (which I have assumed up to
this point), than that is one thing, and this entire thread really means nothing
because the decision was already set in stone when it was started. And that's
okay. TLG owns it, so in the end, they can do whatever the heck they want to
do. But if all of this comes down to just your own personal opinion and that's
it, that is something entirely different and seems problematic in the spirit
of BrickLink (built by the community for the community). I hope that is not the
case.
Also, the chairs being merged (the one with the ugly sprue mark and the one without)
is a perfect example that contradicts the statement that the "BrickLink Way"
cares about cosmetic appeal. The truth is actually that there are levels of functional
and cosmetic differences that will be accepted and others that won't. Unfortunately,
we still do not have any clear idea where BrickLink (or you?) are going to draw
that line. I am comfortable with the current round of changes, but I am worried
about the slippery slope.
| | Historical variants are fine as long as they don't disrupt the mainstream,
and that is the essence of what is being corrected here. For example, there is
nothing fundamentally wrong with distinguishing a vented stud. But for parts
like the 2 x 2 Dome:
[p=3262]
it is a very common part and it's part of the mainstream group of basic elements.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 09:37 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
|
Are notes searchable in any way? Because I don't know them to be. This is
kind of moot if you're asking for us to manually look through potentially
hundreds of shops.
|
Yes, they are searchable:
https://www.bricklink.com/searchAdvanced.asp?utm_content=subnav
|
Thank you
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BensBrickstore | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 02:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think this is way to short of a time period before these changes are being
implemented. I have mixed feelings about the changes, particularly with the distinctions
on minifig parts. I think ribs on torsos and head stud variants are important
to differentiate.
Also, the vast majority of users don't look at the forum very often, if at
all. The forum is archaic. It's tedious to read, and you can't even react
to posts with a like button etc. How about when a critical change like this is
being discussed, send an email letting everyone know about it, with a link to
the forum thread etc...BEFORE actually changing the thing.
If the forum isn't going to get a modern update any time soon, maybe important
discussions like this would be better suited somewhere else. Maybe Bricklink
could create an official Facebook group or something.
It sounds like these changes are already set in stone, despite a lot of concerns
expressed by both buyers and sellers. Even though only a very small % of the
community has probably seen this forum thread. That's unfortunate.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | grimsbricksuk | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 03:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The minifig heads should absolutely be removed and dealt with separately, especially
if there’s over 1100 of them to consider! That is a lot of work for sellers (&
collectors) to manage, especially with only 3 weeks notice!
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 04:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
Important problem to address but bad solution IMO, but I won't waste time
giving input, so ok, go for it Just a question:
Will it affect the item numbers (e.g. removal of the "b" )? If so, is
there a complete list of which item numbers (design IDs) exactly are going to
be affected and what the new numbers will be?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 06:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
Important problem to address but bad solution IMO, but I won't waste time
giving input, so ok, go for it Just a question:
Will it affect the item numbers (e.g. removal of the "b" )? If so, is
there a complete list of which item numbers (design IDs) exactly are going to
be affected and what the new numbers will be?
|
Also can I opt in for a merge? Or is there / will there be an easy way to see
which lots are duplicate? Duplicate lots would cause problems in our system so
I want to make sure we don't have any.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 06:37 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Also can I opt in for a merge? Or is there / will there be an easy way to see
which lots are duplicate? Duplicate lots would cause problems in our system so
I want to make sure we don't have any.
|
Maybe merge them yourself just before?
List is here: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 07:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Also can I opt in for a merge? Or is there / will there be an easy way to see
which lots are duplicate? Duplicate lots would cause problems in our system so
I want to make sure we don't have any.
|
Maybe merge them yourself just before?
List is here: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
|
Ah, great, thanks! Yes, if nothing else, I could go over this manually. Annoying,
but one-time only, so that's alright.
But...
1. I still need to have a list with the eventual numbers of everything (to make
sure that our BL keeps working in sync with our other venues). What does "merged"
here exactly mean - that these entries listed here are the entries that will
disappear? Confused because in some cases I see only one entry listed (4079b
Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 with Center Sprue Mark), but in some cases
two (hinge with 7 teeth, hinge with 9 teeth are both listed).
2. Is this official, is it confirmed that this list is complete? Asking because
last time we were "given a month" it wasn't actually a month for
us to adapt, but a month in which BL itself was making up its mind and kept making
some changes... I don't want to work through this list only to have to do
it again in 2 weeks.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 07:20 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
1. I still need to have a list with the eventual numbers of everything (to make
sure that our BL keeps working in sync with our other venues). What does "merged"
here exactly mean - that these entries listed here are the entries that will
disappear? Confused because in some cases I see only one entry listed (4079b
Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 with Center Sprue Mark), but in some cases
two (hinge with 7 teeth, hinge with 9 teeth are both listed).
|
Good question… but I don’t know the answer.
(And I would like to know too because my personal inventory can automatically
survive a change of ID or a change of description but not both.)
It’s been written by Russell (his name is at the bottom).
| | is it confirmed that this list is complete?
|
I don’t konw.
| | Asking because
last time we were "given a month" it wasn't actually a month for
us to adapt, but a month in which BL itself was making up its mind and kept making
some changes... I don't want to work through this list only to have to do
it again in 2 weeks.
|
Indeed. “It’s a decade-old problem. In 2 weeks we break everything!”
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
1. I still need to have a list with the eventual numbers of everything (to make
sure that our BL keeps working in sync with our other venues). What does "merged"
here exactly mean - that these entries listed here are the entries that will
disappear? Confused because in some cases I see only one entry listed (4079b
Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 with Center Sprue Mark), but in some cases
two (hinge with 7 teeth, hinge with 9 teeth are both listed).
|
Good question… but I don’t know the answer.
(And I would like to know too because my personal inventory can automatically
survive a change of ID or a change of description but not both.)
It’s been written by Russell (his name is at the bottom).
| | is it confirmed that this list is complete?
|
I don’t konw.
| | Asking because
last time we were "given a month" it wasn't actually a month for
us to adapt, but a month in which BL itself was making up its mind and kept making
some changes... I don't want to work through this list only to have to do
it again in 2 weeks.
|
Indeed. “It’s a decade-old problem. In 2 weeks we break everything!”
|
Hmmm and also, I see that the proposed change of removing the "with groove"
entries is not in this list, so it seems incomplete. This is likely going to
result in us having to shut down the business for one or two days and figure
out what the damage is, I guess.
As for the groove, I'm curious if that would also affect:
The old one is still plenty in stock everywhere. I'd hate to throw them all
together in one bag... As a seller I don't mind it, but I mean... if you
make a building with a layer of these, wouldn't it be kinda ugly if some
of them have a groove and some don't 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 08:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Hmmm and also, I see that the proposed change of removing the "with groove"
entries is not in this list, so it seems incomplete. This is likely going to
result in us having to shut down the business for one or two days and figure
out what the damage is, I guess.
|
Russell clarified that 3068b and 3068a (and other tiles) won’t be merged: the
“With Groove” will be removed from 3068b and, IIUC, 3068b will become 3068.
Like we have 3001 and 3001old.
Don’t know if 3068a will become 3068old though, but the entry will be kept separate.
| | As for the groove, I'm curious if that would also affect:
|
I don’t think so.
The underside is functionally different too.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 10:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Hmmm and also, I see that the proposed change of removing the "with groove"
entries is not in this list, so it seems incomplete. This is likely going to
result in us having to shut down the business for one or two days and figure
out what the damage is, I guess.
|
Russell clarified that 3068b and 3068a (and other tiles) won’t be merged: the
“With Groove” will be removed from 3068b and, IIUC, 3068b will become 3068.
Like we have 3001 and 3001old.
Don’t know if 3068a will become 3068old though, but the entry will be kept separate.
|
Aha, thanks for clearing that up, Jen and Sylvain. So, in that case that list
actually is complete (and potentially definitive). Good to know.
And @Jen I agree that removing specifications from the name that are very rarely
relevant (anymore) is a good thing. That sort of thing really does scare casual
buyers away as they can get overwhelmed and don't understand what elements
of the name/description are relevant to them. Bricklink is a lot to take in.
And removing "smooth" slopes is good too, I never acknowledged that as
a legitimate thing in the first place
Ok, seems the changes are not as dramatic as I feared at first. The amount of
duplicate lots this will produce will not be that numerous for most sellers.
But I do hope Russell will find some time before the deadline to clarify in that
list which exact item numbers are going to be removed and which ones will stay.
That way, once the change is made, sellers can spot their duplicates easily.
And I can make some adjustments to make sure the sync system here works correctly.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 11:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Ok, seems the changes are not as dramatic as I feared at first. The amount of
duplicate lots this will produce will not be that numerous for most sellers.
But I do hope Russell will find some time before the deadline to clarify in that
list which exact item numbers are going to be removed and which ones will stay.
That way, once the change is made, sellers can spot their duplicates easily.
And I can make some adjustments to make sure the sync system here works correctly.
|
That is probably true for many of us. It seemed like quite a scary thing at first,
I don't know if it is the way it is written or the way many of us interpreted
it, but I think a lot of us got the wrong end of the stick. The subsequent clarifications
as to what is actually planned have made a lot of sense. It would have been good
to see more examples in the original post, and also examples of what the outcomes
would be after the changes for those parts.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Ok, seems the changes are not as dramatic as I feared at first. The amount of
duplicate lots this will produce will not be that numerous for most sellers.
But I do hope Russell will find some time before the deadline to clarify in that
list which exact item numbers are going to be removed and which ones will stay.
That way, once the change is made, sellers can spot their duplicates easily.
And I can make some adjustments to make sure the sync system here works correctly.
|
That is probably true for many of us. It seemed like quite a scary thing at first,
I don't know if it is the way it is written or the way many of us interpreted
it, but I think a lot of us got the wrong end of the stick. The subsequent clarifications
as to what is actually planned have made a lot of sense. It would have been good
to see more examples in the original post, and also examples of what the outcomes
would be after the changes for those parts.
|
Besides the minifigure parts I agree it isn’t that crazy. Things like removing
the with groove makes sense and stuff
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 143 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Hmmm and also, I see that the proposed change of removing the "with groove"
entries is not in this list, so it seems incomplete. This is likely going to
result in us having to shut down the business for one or two days and figure
out what the damage is, I guess.
|
Russell clarified that 3068b and 3068a (and other tiles) won’t be merged: the
“With Groove” will be removed from 3068b and, IIUC, 3068b will become 3068.
Like we have 3001 and 3001old.
Don’t know if 3068a will become 3068old though, but the entry will be kept separate.
|
Aha, thanks for clearing that up, Jen and Sylvain. So, in that case that list
actually is complete (and potentially definitive). Good to know.
And @Jen I agree that removing specifications from the name that are very rarely
relevant (anymore) is a good thing. That sort of thing really does scare casual
buyers away as they can get overwhelmed and don't understand what elements
of the name/description are relevant to them. Bricklink is a lot to take in.
And removing "smooth" slopes is good too, I never acknowledged that as
a legitimate thing in the first place
Ok, seems the changes are not as dramatic as I feared at first. The amount of
duplicate lots this will produce will not be that numerous for most sellers.
But I do hope Russell will find some time before the deadline to clarify in that
list which exact item numbers are going to be removed and which ones will stay.
That way, once the change is made, sellers can spot their duplicates easily.
And I can make some adjustments to make sure the sync system here works correctly.
|
I finished the list this morning:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Looking at this list I may have been wrong about something and was hoping you
could clarify.
It says
“Blocked and vented studs will be merged”
So does that mean hollow and blocked are not being merged? I was under the impression
that vented, hollow, and blocked were all being merged which was very uncounted
but reading this again it sounds like only blocked and vented are being merged
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Looking at this list I may have been wrong about something and was hoping you
could clarify.
It says
“Blocked and vented studs will be merged”
So does that mean hollow and blocked are not being merged? I was under the impression
that vented, hollow, and blocked were all being merged which was very uncounted
but reading this again it sounds like only blocked and vented are being merged
|
Was questioning the same thing?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 118 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Looking at this list I may have been wrong about something and was hoping you
could clarify.
It says
“Blocked and vented studs will be merged”
So does that mean hollow and blocked are not being merged? I was under the impression
that vented, hollow, and blocked were all being merged which was very uncounted
but reading this again it sounds like only blocked and vented are being merged
|
Blocked and vented will be merged to hollow. Here is a comparison:
Offically recognized stud types BEFORE:
Solid, blocked, hollow, vented, open
Offically recognized stud types AFTER:
Solid, hollow, open
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 21:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Looking at this list I may have been wrong about something and was hoping you
could clarify.
It says
“Blocked and vented studs will be merged”
So does that mean hollow and blocked are not being merged? I was under the impression
that vented, hollow, and blocked were all being merged which was very uncounted
but reading this again it sounds like only blocked and vented are being merged
|
Blocked and vented will be merged to hollow. Here is a comparison:
Offically recognized stud types BEFORE:
Solid, blocked, hollow, vented, open
Offically recognized stud types AFTER:
Solid, hollow, open
|
From the list:
Blocked and vented studs will be merged
3626b Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Blocked Open Stud
28621 Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Vented Stud
553a Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top without Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open Stud
3262 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Vented Stud
30151a Brick, Round 2 x 2 x 1 2/3 Dome Top - Blocked Open Stud
-------------------------
3626b and 28621 will be merged to 3626c, leaves
- 3626(a) Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Solid Stud
alternate item number 30011(a)
- 3626(c) Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Hollow Stud
alternate item numbers 3274, 28621, 30011(c), 88475
But for the Dome Tops we now have:
- 553 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top (Undetermined Type)
- 553a Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top without Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open
Stud
- 553b Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open Stud
(alternate item number 30367b)
- 553c Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Hollow Stud
(alternate item numbers 18841, 30367, 40528)
- 3262 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Vented Stud
553a doesn't have a Bottom Axle Holder, yet it will be merged, but there's
nothing to merge to. After the merge we will only have Dome Tops with Bottom
Axle Holder:
- 553 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top (Undetermined Type)
- 553b Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open Stud
- 553c Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Hollow Stud
Although I would like to keep them all as separate entries, my guess is that
the intention is to merge 553b and 3262, NOT 553a which would leave us with
- 553 undetermined type (2000-2011), could be both remaining types, so should
stay
- 553a Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top without Bottom Axle Holder (1999-2005)
- 553? Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder (2008-2024)
Diana
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 01:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 130 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Looking at this list I may have been wrong about something and was hoping you
could clarify.
It says
“Blocked and vented studs will be merged”
So does that mean hollow and blocked are not being merged? I was under the impression
that vented, hollow, and blocked were all being merged which was very uncounted
but reading this again it sounds like only blocked and vented are being merged
|
Blocked and vented will be merged to hollow. Here is a comparison:
Offically recognized stud types BEFORE:
Solid, blocked, hollow, vented, open
Offically recognized stud types AFTER:
Solid, hollow, open
|
From the list:
Blocked and vented studs will be merged
3626b Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Blocked Open Stud
28621 Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Vented Stud
553a Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top without Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open Stud
3262 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Vented Stud
30151a Brick, Round 2 x 2 x 1 2/3 Dome Top - Blocked Open Stud
-------------------------
3626b and 28621 will be merged to 3626c, leaves
- 3626(a) Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Solid Stud
alternate item number 30011(a)
- 3626(c) Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Hollow Stud
alternate item numbers 3274, 28621, 30011(c), 88475
But for the Dome Tops we now have:
- 553 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top (Undetermined Type)
- 553a Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top without Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open
Stud
- 553b Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open Stud
(alternate item number 30367b)
- 553c Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Hollow Stud
(alternate item numbers 18841, 30367, 40528)
- 3262 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Vented Stud
553a doesn't have a Bottom Axle Holder, yet it will be merged, but there's
nothing to merge to. After the merge we will only have Dome Tops with Bottom
Axle Holder:
- 553 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top (Undetermined Type)
- 553b Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open Stud
- 553c Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Hollow Stud
Although I would like to keep them all as separate entries, my guess is that
the intention is to merge 553b and 3262, NOT 553a which would leave us with
- 553 undetermined type (2000-2011), could be both remaining types, so should
stay
- 553a Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top without Bottom Axle Holder (1999-2005)
- 553? Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder (2008-2024)
Diana
|
You are correct. 553b will be merged, not 553a.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 22:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Looking at this list I may have been wrong about something and was hoping you
could clarify.
It says
“Blocked and vented studs will be merged”
So does that mean hollow and blocked are not being merged? I was under the impression
that vented, hollow, and blocked were all being merged which was very uncounted
but reading this again it sounds like only blocked and vented are being merged
|
Blocked and vented will be merged to hollow. Here is a comparison:
Offically recognized stud types BEFORE:
Solid, blocked, hollow, vented, open
Offically recognized stud types AFTER:
Solid, hollow, open
|
sorry for all the questions but here is 1 more
will the "This minifigure has been found with both the 'b' and 'c'
style head." notes stay? if would be amazing if they could but with everything
getting removed I thought I would ask but i supsect i may already know the answer...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 23:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Looking at this list I may have been wrong about something and was hoping you
could clarify.
It says
“Blocked and vented studs will be merged”
So does that mean hollow and blocked are not being merged? I was under the impression
that vented, hollow, and blocked were all being merged which was very uncounted
but reading this again it sounds like only blocked and vented are being merged
|
Blocked and vented will be merged to hollow. Here is a comparison:
Offically recognized stud types BEFORE:
Solid, blocked, hollow, vented, open
Offically recognized stud types AFTER:
Solid, hollow, open
|
sorry for all the questions but here is 1 more
will the "This minifigure has been found with both the 'b' and 'c'
style head." notes stay? if would be amazing if they could but with everything
getting removed I thought I would ask but i supsect i may already know the answer...
|
Since there will not be a 'b' and 'c' style head anymore, the
note will be a line of nonsense. All of those notes will either need to be updated
or just removed. I am guessing that they are going to want to remove them completely.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 23:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Looking at this list I may have been wrong about something and was hoping you
could clarify.
It says
“Blocked and vented studs will be merged”
So does that mean hollow and blocked are not being merged? I was under the impression
that vented, hollow, and blocked were all being merged which was very uncounted
but reading this again it sounds like only blocked and vented are being merged
|
Blocked and vented will be merged to hollow. Here is a comparison:
Offically recognized stud types BEFORE:
Solid, blocked, hollow, vented, open
Offically recognized stud types AFTER:
Solid, hollow, open
|
sorry for all the questions but here is 1 more
will the "This minifigure has been found with both the 'b' and 'c'
style head." notes stay? if would be amazing if they could but with everything
getting removed I thought I would ask but i supsect i may already know the answer...
|
Since there will not be a 'b' and 'c' style head anymore, the
note will be a line of nonsense. All of those notes will either need to be updated
or just removed. I am guessing that they are going to want to remove them completely.
|
Mhm as suspected. Thankyou
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | I finished the list this morning:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
Thank you very much -- that's very helpful!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | brickerking | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I propose a simple poll. You are not going to get a good idea of what buyers
and sellers on BL actually want unless you send out a poll. Either you have already
made the decision and you're just trying to smooth the transition by having
a forum discussion about it - OR - you really care about what the majority of
users want and you put it to a poll.
Just send out an email to a poll hosted on bricklink or where-ever asking a yes
or no to merging variants and state your case. Then let the people give you their
feedback. Give the poll a couple weeks and then show the results and make your
decision based on that. That would be a much more transparent way of doing this
- especially considering all the work people have put in and the knowledge that
would be eventually lost.
Again, if you don't care what BL users want, then by all means, just make
whatever decision you have already made and we'll all have to live with it.
But if you do care, put it to a poll. Actually find out what people want. You
could even stick in a few other poll questions at the same time that might be
helpful to your marketing team.
You won't regret sending out a poll but you might regret NOT sending out
a poll.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Hmmm and also, I see that the proposed change of removing the "with groove"
entries is not in this list, so it seems incomplete. This is likely going to
result in us having to shut down the business for one or two days and figure
out what the damage is, I guess.
|
Russell clarified that 3068b and 3068a (and other tiles) won’t be merged: the
“With Groove” will be removed from 3068b and, IIUC, 3068b will become 3068.
Like we have 3001 and 3001old.
Don’t know if 3068a will become 3068old though, but the entry will be kept separate.
|
Aha, thanks for clearing that up, Jen and Sylvain. So, in that case that list
actually is complete (and potentially definitive). Good to know.
And @Jen I agree that removing specifications from the name that are very rarely
relevant (anymore) is a good thing. That sort of thing really does scare casual
buyers away as they can get overwhelmed and don't understand what elements
of the name/description are relevant to them. Bricklink is a lot to take in.
And removing "smooth" slopes is good too, I never acknowledged that as
a legitimate thing in the first place
Ok, seems the changes are not as dramatic as I feared at first. The amount of
duplicate lots this will produce will not be that numerous for most sellers.
But I do hope Russell will find some time before the deadline to clarify in that
list which exact item numbers are going to be removed and which ones will stay.
That way, once the change is made, sellers can spot their duplicates easily.
And I can make some adjustments to make sure the sync system here works correctly.
|
I finished the list this morning:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickerking writes:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 15:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickerking writes:
| | I propose a simple poll. You are not going to get a good idea of what buyers
and sellers on BL actually want unless you send out a poll.
|
Many here in forum might be concerned about 4737a - this specific and exact version.
Forum is everything but NOT normal AFOL public.
99% of my buyers don't even know there's a Forum, and even if won't
go there.
AFOLs, for a immense majority are building/fixing existing (more or less recent)
Sets, or picked from the web like Rebrickable, or making their own creations.
To play/create with - not to collect or reconstitute.
They wish a Minifig Head with (some) Smile - and don't care for any Hollow,
Blocked or Plain one - just the freaking cheapest and most available.
As a seller, a buyer, an AFOL still creating in LEGO since I'm kid, I'm
sorry, but I really can't see how a Poll would be necessary.
And don't worry, LEGO and BrickLink have studied this for a long time with
much efforts and stats.
Random Price Guide example:
Total New 3747a Blue sold on BrickLink for the last 6 months: 109
Total New 3747b Blue sold on BrickLink for the last 6 months: 7794
The vast majority of LEGO users and BrickLink members are not here for specific
versions.
This change is to simplify the majority of members, and to still alow very specific
demands.
That seems a very smart approach to me, don't you think so?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | brickerking | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 23:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, brickerking writes:
| | I propose a simple poll. You are not going to get a good idea of what buyers
and sellers on BL actually want unless you send out a poll.
|
Many here in forum might be concerned about 4737a - this specific and exact version.
Forum is everything but NOT normal AFOL public.
99% of my buyers don't even know there's a Forum, and even if won't
go there.
AFOLs, for a immense majority are building/fixing existing (more or less recent)
Sets, or picked from the web like Rebrickable, or making their own creations.
To play/create with - not to collect or reconstitute.
They wish a Minifig Head with (some) Smile - and don't care for any Hollow,
Blocked or Plain one - just the freaking cheapest and most available.
As a seller, a buyer, an AFOL still creating in LEGO since I'm kid, I'm
sorry, but I really can't see how a Poll would be necessary.
And don't worry, LEGO and BrickLink have studied this for a long time with
much efforts and stats.
Random Price Guide example:
Total New 3747a Blue sold on BrickLink for the last 6 months: 109
Total New 3747b Blue sold on BrickLink for the last 6 months: 7794
The vast majority of LEGO users and BrickLink members are not here for specific
versions.
This change is to simplify the majority of members, and to still alow very specific
demands.
That seems a very smart approach to me, don't you think so?
|
I really don't care. I'm just bothered by the illusion of putting an
"idea" out to the forum to get feedback when something has already been
decided. If you really want to let the users decide on something then create
a poll and put it to the users. If you have already decided on making a change
and trying to convince yourself and forum readers that you are doing the right
thing, do it on the forum. You will have some detractors and you will have your
cheerleaders. The cheerleaders will make you believe you were right and there
is no reason to change course because enough people seem to agree with you. You
my friend, if you didn't know it, are a cheerleader. You can read through
the thread and also find the detractors. But it's usually the cheerleaders
that make the OP feel good about their original decision and feel like this matter
has been discussed in the public so they have done their due diligence - even
though the decision on what to do was already made weeks ago. The detractors
are now somewhat satisfied because they have had their say, even though it didn't
count for anything (and they probably knew that). It's just a way to market
a possibly unpopular idea.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 02:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Long boring post, sorry, see below (to keep the context).
| | | | Many here in forum might be concerned about 4737a - this specific and exact version.
Forum is everything but NOT normal AFOL public.
99% of my buyers don't even know there's a Forum, and even if won't
go there.
AFOLs, for a immense majority are building/fixing existing (more or less recent)
Sets, or picked from the web like Rebrickable, or making their own creations.
To play/create with - not to collect or reconstitute.
They wish a Minifig Head with (some) Smile - and don't care for any Hollow,
Blocked or Plain one - just the freaking cheapest and most available.
As a seller, a buyer, an AFOL still creating in LEGO since I'm kid, I'm
sorry, but I really can't see how a Poll would be necessary.
And don't worry, LEGO and BrickLink have studied this for a long time with
much efforts and stats.
Random Price Guide example:
Total New 3747a Blue sold on BrickLink for the last 6 months: 109
Total New 3747b Blue sold on BrickLink for the last 6 months: 7794
The vast majority of LEGO users and BrickLink members are not here for specific
versions.
This change is to simplify the majority of members, and to still alow very specific
demands.
That seems a very smart approach to me, don't you think so?
|
I really don't care. I'm just bothered by the illusion of putting an
"idea" out to the forum to get feedback when something has already been
decided. If you really want to let the users decide on something then create
a poll and put it to the users. If you have already decided on making a change
and trying to convince yourself and forum readers that you are doing the right
thing, do it on the forum. You will have some detractors and you will have your
cheerleaders. The cheerleaders will make you believe you were right and there
is no reason to change course because enough people seem to agree with you. You
my friend, if you didn't know it, are a cheerleader. You can read through
the thread and also find the detractors. But it's usually the cheerleaders
that make the OP feel good about their original decision and feel like this matter
has been discussed in the public so they have done their due diligence - even
though the decision on what to do was already made weeks ago. The detractors
are now somewhat satisfied because they have had their say, even though it didn't
count for anything (and they probably knew that). It's just a way to market
a possibly unpopular idea.
|
Thanks for your opinion and kind words!
Problem is: forum does not represent buyers - see numbers I give above.
To give you my personnal stats, on 30,000 buyers at shop, I've located maybe
a dozen of them to ever have posted in forum, and half of them being friend sellers
who post every week at least.
That's zero percent. Language being part of the problem.
And the forum itself is sooooo (nicely!) biased with super-fans, collectors,
historians, catalogists, people involved in inventories - not talking about sellers,
some with specialized or wide inventories...
... then I'd say, yes, without a doubt, forum would vote in favor to keep
the existing.
But Forum's not the reality; we're a TV or a Radio, not the people of
the country.
The other point is that a "Poll" is almost impossible, for practical,
time and cost reasons, asking their vote to "a random bunch of accounts",
technically how, what about those who won't reply, in which language, country...
... will it be mathematically sufficient to represent the actual BrickLink market?
OK, but then say the Poll is done.
Then BrickLink gives you "27.6%" for any result. Will you believe this
number? I mean, one could think they could pick whatever number they wish, so
unhappy people may become... even unhappier? Someone will verify the sealed votes???
I don't say a prealable discussion wouldn't have been fine.
But be sure that LEGO/BrickLink has stats and ideas of the market, with billions
of sales and PB (Peta or more) of data accumulated for tens of years.
Somewhere, I realize if they didn't start a discussion about this subject
6 months ago in forum, it's basically they don't need us to make an informed
decision. Sorry.
Lastly.
I receive requests for quote with an XML almost every day.
I correct every day the 3068a in the XML, BSX and often in Studio file, what
a PITA!
People build on Studio, they don't show the price option, or miss the price
shown, take a Tile and boom - it's the one without groove, of course.
Half the jumpers are 3794s (of course for no real reason).
Should those things with clip be version a, b, c, or d for some?
And it's even worse if they try to use a Buy All or such by themselves -
because their price will skyrocket when trying to order 5x 3068b White... at
$10
People use LEGO bricks to play and build with available parts relatively easy
to source.
I am concerned for people having invested time, energy and money in more or less
rare variations, for reasons.
I'm sure BrickLink will make it possible to still use this wonderful and
gigantic catalog to keep this special activity. The contrary would be stupid.
Nobody wants to abandon anyone or this history.
Sorry for the FAR TL;DR.
Very late, won't sleep - probably won't reply, said too much and personnaly
I'm super happy of this change, as a seller, buyer and builder (darn those
3068a in Studio!!!).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Chris_138 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That seems a very smart approach to me, don't you think so?
Yes, preparing the new Bricklink site, coming in a few years!
Bricklink is completely obsolete in 2024, we need that completely new site soon.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Chris_138 writes:
| | That seems a very smart approach to me, don't you think so?
Yes, preparing the new Bricklink site, coming in a few years!
Bricklink is completely obsolete in 2024, we need that completely new site soon.
|
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!
If it an’t broke, DON’T fix it!!
The “new” site you think of is a super bad idea and the problems that would arise
from that don’t get me started.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 15:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I have altered all my affected stock, added notes where I think I need them.
Phew !
Changes or no changes, it’s done.
Await the next lot chosen.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Hmmm and also, I see that the proposed change of removing the "with groove"
entries is not in this list, so it seems incomplete. This is likely going to
result in us having to shut down the business for one or two days and figure
out what the damage is, I guess.
|
Russell clarified that 3068b and 3068a (and other tiles) won’t be merged: the
“With Groove” will be removed from 3068b and, IIUC, 3068b will become 3068.
Like we have 3001 and 3001old.
Don’t know if 3068a will become 3068old though, but the entry will be kept separate.
|
Aha, thanks for clearing that up, Jen and Sylvain. So, in that case that list
actually is complete (and potentially definitive). Good to know.
And @Jen I agree that removing specifications from the name that are very rarely
relevant (anymore) is a good thing. That sort of thing really does scare casual
buyers away as they can get overwhelmed and don't understand what elements
of the name/description are relevant to them. Bricklink is a lot to take in.
And removing "smooth" slopes is good too, I never acknowledged that as
a legitimate thing in the first place
Ok, seems the changes are not as dramatic as I feared at first. The amount of
duplicate lots this will produce will not be that numerous for most sellers.
But I do hope Russell will find some time before the deadline to clarify in that
list which exact item numbers are going to be removed and which ones will stay.
That way, once the change is made, sellers can spot their duplicates easily.
And I can make some adjustments to make sure the sync system here works correctly.
|
I finished the list this morning:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Hmmm and also, I see that the proposed change of removing the "with groove"
entries is not in this list, so it seems incomplete. This is likely going to
result in us having to shut down the business for one or two days and figure
out what the damage is, I guess.
|
Russell clarified that 3068b and 3068a (and other tiles) won’t be merged: the
“With Groove” will be removed from 3068b and, IIUC, 3068b will become 3068.
Like we have 3001 and 3001old.
Don’t know if 3068a will become 3068old though, but the entry will be kept separate.
|
Aha, thanks for clearing that up, Jen and Sylvain. So, in that case that list
actually is complete (and potentially definitive). Good to know.
And @Jen I agree that removing specifications from the name that are very rarely
relevant (anymore) is a good thing. That sort of thing really does scare casual
buyers away as they can get overwhelmed and don't understand what elements
of the name/description are relevant to them. Bricklink is a lot to take in.
And removing "smooth" slopes is good too, I never acknowledged that as
a legitimate thing in the first place
Ok, seems the changes are not as dramatic as I feared at first. The amount of
duplicate lots this will produce will not be that numerous for most sellers.
But I do hope Russell will find some time before the deadline to clarify in that
list which exact item numbers are going to be removed and which ones will stay.
That way, once the change is made, sellers can spot their duplicates easily.
And I can make some adjustments to make sure the sync system here works correctly.
|
I finished the list this morning:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
|
Thanks!
| | Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
In our particular case, the item number changes are very significant because
of how we sync inventory. We don't use any Bricklink IP in terms of its catalog
text or pictures, but the Bricklink numbers have to port correctly to our catalog
and vice versa. It would be good to know them in advance, though I'm aware
I'm one of few sellers for whom the item number is of importance.
Anyway, for other sellers I think a list of eventual item numbers is useful too,
so that once the change is made, they can identify and eliminate/comment duplicate
lots efficiently though the inventory search function, if they haven't done
so yet at that time. Helps avoiding pointless duplicate lots, which buyers often
dislike.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 07:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
It is also extremely important to retain and update all comparison images. The
submitter's work should be lost in this process. Just adding an Additional
Note is insufficient as the image is more accurate and useful. (Especially for
non-English speakers.) Also, many members have Collapsed their Notes and never
see them.
The comparison images will be even more important going forward as, without distinctions
in the Catalog, many inexperienced members will pick up an odd mold and immediately
call: Fake.
I can just imagine it now: selling a rare 'Hollow' stud SW head, only
to be confronted by a buyer claiming it's fake due to the absence of the
LEGO logo and 'some weird triangle top'. Every single head that comes
in multiple variants needs to be publicly documented for this purpose.
What is going to happen if the Minifigure, Head image that is retained has an
inset showing its Stud variant? Buyers will assume that that is the correct version
going forward.
Which of these images will you choose, what happens to the other one, and what
happens to the inset?
* | | 3626bpb0748 Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Klatooinian Dark Green Facial Lines, Dark Bluish Gray Eye Shadow, and Sharp Teeth (Kithaba) Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
* | | 3626cpb0748 Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Klatooinian Dark Green Facial Lines, Dark Bluish Gray Eye Shadow, and Sharp Teeth (Kithaba) Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
Thanks,
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 120 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
It is also extremely important to retain and update all comparison images. The
submitter's work should be lost in this process. Just adding an Additional
Note is insufficient as the image is more accurate and useful. (Especially for
non-English speakers.) Also, many members have Collapsed their Notes and never
see them.
The comparison images will be even more important going forward as, without distinctions
in the Catalog, many inexperienced members will pick up an odd mold and immediately
call: Fake.
I can just imagine it now: selling a rare 'Hollow' stud SW head, only
to be confronted by a buyer claiming it's fake due to the absence of the
LEGO logo and 'some weird triangle top'. Every single head that comes
in multiple variants needs to be publicly documented for this purpose.
What is going to happen if the Minifigure, Head image that is retained has an
inset showing its Stud variant? Buyers will assume that that is the correct version
going forward.
Which of these images will you choose, what happens to the other one, and what
happens to the inset?
* | | 3626bpb0748 Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Klatooinian Dark Green Facial Lines, Dark Bluish Gray Eye Shadow, and Sharp Teeth (Kithaba) Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
* | | 3626cpb0748 Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Klatooinian Dark Green Facial Lines, Dark Bluish Gray Eye Shadow, and Sharp Teeth (Kithaba) Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
Thanks,
Jen
|
All images will be retained, especially the comparison images. In choosing the
primary image, we will likely just choose the one that looks the best. For the
example you gave above, I personally would be inclined to remove the inset image
from one of the images and use that one as the primary image, and then retain
both original images as alternates.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 15:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
It is also extremely important to retain and update all comparison images. The
submitter's work should be lost in this process. Just adding an Additional
Note is insufficient as the image is more accurate and useful. (Especially for
non-English speakers.) Also, many members have Collapsed their Notes and never
see them.
The comparison images will be even more important going forward as, without distinctions
in the Catalog, many inexperienced members will pick up an odd mold and immediately
call: Fake.
I can just imagine it now: selling a rare 'Hollow' stud SW head, only
to be confronted by a buyer claiming it's fake due to the absence of the
LEGO logo and 'some weird triangle top'. Every single head that comes
in multiple variants needs to be publicly documented for this purpose.
What is going to happen if the Minifigure, Head image that is retained has an
inset showing its Stud variant? Buyers will assume that that is the correct version
going forward.
Which of these images will you choose, what happens to the other one, and what
happens to the inset?
* | | 3626bpb0748 Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Klatooinian Dark Green Facial Lines, Dark Bluish Gray Eye Shadow, and Sharp Teeth (Kithaba) Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
* | | 3626cpb0748 Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Klatooinian Dark Green Facial Lines, Dark Bluish Gray Eye Shadow, and Sharp Teeth (Kithaba) Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
Thanks,
Jen
|
All images will be retained, especially the comparison images. In choosing the
primary image, we will likely just choose the one that looks the best. For the
example you gave above, I personally would be inclined to remove the inset image
from one of the images and use that one as the primary image, and then retain
both original images as alternates.
|
Yes it would make sense at some point to crop images like this so you only see
the actual Face (along with dual sided face where applicable) but then what might
be better is to have something like my example top down photo as the secondary
image (Obviously in Olive Green instead) but the good thing with doing this is
that you can save time and use these same images for all other minifig heads
of the same colour that come in the same combination of stud types which also
helps keep some continuity.
I'm sure someone can do a better job but essentially you could use my example
photo as the secondary image for all those Light Nougat heads that come in both
Blocked Open and Hollow stud for example
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Kenopolis | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 18:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
It is also extremely important to retain and update all comparison images. The
submitter's work should be lost in this process. Just adding an Additional
Note is insufficient as the image is more accurate and useful. (Especially for
non-English speakers.) Also, many members have Collapsed their Notes and never
see them.
The comparison images will be even more important going forward as, without distinctions
in the Catalog, many inexperienced members will pick up an odd mold and immediately
call: Fake.
I can just imagine it now: selling a rare 'Hollow' stud SW head, only
to be confronted by a buyer claiming it's fake due to the absence of the
LEGO logo and 'some weird triangle top'. Every single head that comes
in multiple variants needs to be publicly documented for this purpose.
What is going to happen if the Minifigure, Head image that is retained has an
inset showing its Stud variant? Buyers will assume that that is the correct version
going forward.
Which of these images will you choose, what happens to the other one, and what
happens to the inset?
* | | 3626bpb0748 Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Klatooinian Dark Green Facial Lines, Dark Bluish Gray Eye Shadow, and Sharp Teeth (Kithaba) Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
* | | 3626cpb0748 Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Klatooinian Dark Green Facial Lines, Dark Bluish Gray Eye Shadow, and Sharp Teeth (Kithaba) Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
Thanks,
Jen
|
This is a very good point.
Default image should be just face (and alternate face)
Additional images can be with the stud.
The comparison you posted in reply would be good too.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 08:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | | |
Indeed. “It’s a decade-old problem. In 2 weeks we break everything!”
|
Hmmm and also, I see that the proposed change of removing the "with groove"
entries is not in this list, so it seems incomplete. This is likely going to
result in us having to shut down the business for one or two days and figure
out what the damage is, I guess.
As for the groove, I'm curious if that would also affect:
The old one is still plenty in stock everywhere. I'd hate to throw them all
together in one bag... As a seller I don't mind it, but I mean... if you
make a building with a layer of these, wouldn't it be kinda ugly if some
of them have a groove and some don't
|
They are not merging with Groove variants.
"Determined Entries for Very Common Parts - Ex. Part 3068b
Tile 2 x 2 with Groove
* This action will affect 4 entries in total. Limiters such as "with Groove"
will be removed from the Item Name. No entries will be merged / removed."
They are just simplifying item names that include reference to the groove since
it will now be considered the default.
~Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 08:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | | |
Indeed. “It’s a decade-old problem. In 2 weeks we break everything!”
|
Hmmm and also, I see that the proposed change of removing the "with groove"
entries is not in this list, so it seems incomplete. This is likely going to
result in us having to shut down the business for one or two days and figure
out what the damage is, I guess.
As for the groove, I'm curious if that would also affect:
The old one is still plenty in stock everywhere. I'd hate to throw them all
together in one bag... As a seller I don't mind it, but I mean... if you
make a building with a layer of these, wouldn't it be kinda ugly if some
of them have a groove and some don't
|
They are not merging with Groove variants.
"Determined Entries for Very Common Parts - Ex. Part 3068b
Tile 2 x 2 with Groove
* This action will affect 4 entries in total. Limiters such as "with Groove"
will be removed from the Item Name. No entries will be merged / removed."
They are just simplifying item names that include reference to the groove since
it will now be considered the default.
~Jen
|
Every time we add a new patterned tile, we have to be aware of whether it's
a groove variant or not. It's kinda annoying actually to keep track of 'with
Groove' or not in so many item names, so I am glad this is going away.
[p=3070b]
[p=3069b]
[p=3068b]
as opposed to:
etc.
~Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 08:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | | |
They are not merging with Groove variants.
"Determined Entries for Very Common Parts - Ex. Part 3068b
Tile 2 x 2 with Groove
* This action will affect 4 entries in total. Limiters such as "with Groove"
will be removed from the Item Name. No entries will be merged / removed."
They are just simplifying item names that include reference to the groove since
it will now be considered the default.
~Jen
|
Every time we add a new patterned tile, we have to be aware of whether it's
a groove variant or not. It's kinda annoying actually to keep track of 'with
Groove' or not in so many item names, so I am glad this is going away.
|
Or, at least, that is what I hope this change is for. Maybe I've misread
it...
~Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:44 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 123 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | | |
They are not merging with Groove variants.
"Determined Entries for Very Common Parts - Ex. Part 3068b
Tile 2 x 2 with Groove
* This action will affect 4 entries in total. Limiters such as "with Groove"
will be removed from the Item Name. No entries will be merged / removed."
They are just simplifying item names that include reference to the groove since
it will now be considered the default.
~Jen
|
Every time we add a new patterned tile, we have to be aware of whether it's
a groove variant or not. It's kinda annoying actually to keep track of 'with
Groove' or not in so many item names, so I am glad this is going away.
|
Or, at least, that is what I hope this change is for. Maybe I've misread
it...
~Jen
|
Nope, you have it right!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 18:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | | |
They are not merging with Groove variants.
"Determined Entries for Very Common Parts - Ex. Part 3068b
Tile 2 x 2 with Groove
* This action will affect 4 entries in total. Limiters such as "with Groove"
will be removed from the Item Name. No entries will be merged / removed."
They are just simplifying item names that include reference to the groove since
it will now be considered the default.
~Jen
|
Every time we add a new patterned tile, we have to be aware of whether it's
a groove variant or not. It's kinda annoying actually to keep track of 'with
Groove' or not in so many item names, so I am glad this is going away.
|
Or, at least, that is what I hope this change is for. Maybe I've misread
it...
~Jen
|
Nope, you have it right!
|
so..... what happens when a buyer is buying un-commented on replacement parts
( newbie unaware of Lego variants) & receives the parts to complete his set &
the completed set is now mis-matched with random grooved & ungrooved tiles...
making the completed set un-uniform...?
will BL cover the costs associated with this conundrum if the casual Lego-neir
is mad & wondering why half his tiles are now grooved & half are not & is demanding
a refund..?
( this is a hypothetical situation brought to you by Planet Earth Toys )
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Chris_138 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Both will be the same parts for everyone & Lego |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tec | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 15:05 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| sounds like everything already decided.
sould like mama Lego imposed it or else.
fearing instant community backlash, someone came up with the idea.
if we let them talk, they wont revolt.
let a week of mourning, then move on.
boss said it, so we do it.
and us, why do we waste 2 hundreds messages on that non-negotiable nerf
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | 1977_mauro | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 16:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| But when we remove the variants from the part lists of sets, no one will know
anymore which variants have been used in an older set - this will drop the demand
of such old variants dramatically.
Mauro
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 17:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 105 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Can the solution to this issue really not wait for Bricklink to develop a proper
umbrella system in the catalog?
Will all of my work be totally erased or will it still be recorded somewhere?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 17:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
Will all of my work be totally erased or will it still be recorded somewhere?
|
i partially saved some of your work that will be affected
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447669
If i missed any please let me know. I'm working on the heads next but dont
know if anything else should be saved
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 20:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Can the solution to this issue really not wait for Bricklink to develop a proper
umbrella system in the catalog?
|
That is the question that I also keep asking myself, but I have not been given
or seen an answer for this. I wish I knew exactly what the rush was for.
| | Will all of my work be totally erased or will it still be recorded somewhere?
|
They could do a database back-up before this all occurs and have the information
stored somewhere, but not being able to publicly access that information means
that it is basically useless and non-existent.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 21:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Will all of my work be totally erased or will it still be recorded somewhere?
|
|
| | They could do a database back-up before this all occurs and have the information
stored somewhere, but not being able to publicly access that information means
that it is basically useless and non-existent.
|
Info such as catalog contributors, dates of changes, item logs etc are only available
in BL's own databases. However, the bare info of what parts make up a minifig
or a set are contained in the nightly database builds for BrickStock / BrickStore.
It would only take a bit of tinkering and programming to use an older copy of
these database files to resurrect the state of inventories at some point in time.
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 05:37 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1977_mauro | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The answer is simple for that Russell, the old sets have them, the new ones not.
Mauro
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
What is it about 32064c that is important to you? There is no functional difference,
and I've never seen one of them used so that the bottom of the brick is visible.
There are no transparent colors either.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, 1977_mauro writes:
| | The answer is simple for that Russell, the old sets have them, the new ones not.
Mauro
|
That is then classified as a historical variant. BrickLink only recognizes selected
historical variants, and the more common the part, the harder it is to justify
splitting the entry.
For this part, there are several other variants (see images attached below).
To truly find the correct "period" piece, you would need to include these
other variants as separate options in the catalog. That means adding them to
inventories, which is an enormous amount of work, and is seldom ever complete
because of transitions.
Then if you took that as a precedent, we would be adding many other historical
variants to the catalog, which is impractical.
I understand the argument of having an "early version" variant like the
3001old to separate out the older parts. But relatively speaking, this is a newer
part and it doesn't have the clutch issues and material issues that the 3001old
has.
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
What is it about 32064c that is important to you? There is no functional difference,
and I've never seen one of them used so that the bottom of the brick is visible.
There are no transparent colors either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | CBak | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 14:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, 1977_mauro writes:
| | The answer is simple for that Russell, the old sets have them, the new ones not.
Mauro
|
That is then classified as a historical variant. BrickLink only recognizes selected
historical variants, and the more common the part, the harder it is to justify
splitting the entry.
For this part, there are several other variants (see images attached below).
To truly find the correct "period" piece, you would need to include these
other variants as separate options in the catalog. That means adding them to
inventories, which is an enormous amount of work, and is seldom ever complete
because of transitions.
Then if you took that as a precedent, we would be adding many other historical
variants to the catalog, which is impractical.
I understand the argument of having an "early version" variant like the
3001old to separate out the older parts. But relatively speaking, this is a newer
part and it doesn't have the clutch issues and material issues that the 3001old
has.
|
In my experience hollow torsos have less clutch power, so by that logic don't
they deserve their own catalog entry?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2024 02:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, 1977_mauro writes:
| | The answer is simple for that Russell, the old sets have them, the new ones not.
Mauro
|
That is then classified as a historical variant. BrickLink only recognizes selected
historical variants, and the more common the part, the harder it is to justify
splitting the entry.
|
But 32064c is not just a historical variant. It is absolutely functionally different
and only came in earlier sets that used the part. Not to mention that the part
is _already_ separated out and has been added to a lot of inventories. If you
remove this entry, then all of that work is gone, and we may need to add it again
later when someone eventually finds a set where 32064c doesn't work in the
build.
| | For this part, there are several other variants (see images attached below).
To truly find the correct "period" piece, you would need to include these
other variants as separate options in the catalog. That means adding them to
inventories, which is an enormous amount of work, and is seldom ever complete
because of transitions.
|
The timeline for the changes of this part are rather straightforward.
| | Then if you took that as a precedent, we would be adding many other historical
variants to the catalog, which is impractical.
I understand the argument of having an "early version" variant like the
3001old to separate out the older parts. But relatively speaking, this is a newer
part and it doesn't have the clutch issues and material issues that the 3001old
has.
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
What is it about 32064c that is important to you? There is no functional difference,
and I've never seen one of them used so that the bottom of the brick is visible.
There are no transparent colors either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rylie_aitch | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
What is it about 32064c that is important to you? There is no functional difference,
and I've never seen one of them used so that the bottom of the brick is visible.
There are no transparent colors either.
|
I don't think these technic bricks have ever quite been recognized correctly
anyway. There is a very common variant with an "X" shape on one side
and a "+" on the other that is hard to list
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 14:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rylie_aitch writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
What is it about 32064c that is important to you? There is no functional difference,
and I've never seen one of them used so that the bottom of the brick is visible.
There are no transparent colors either.
|
I don't think these technic bricks have ever quite been recognized correctly
anyway. There is a very common variant with an "X" shape on one side
and a "+" on the other that is hard to list
|
luckily a note ws recently added for that
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1432711
[P=32064b,6]
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
What is it about 32064c that is important to you? There is no functional difference,
and I've never seen one of them used so that the bottom of the brick is visible.
There are no transparent colors either.
|
The functional difference is described in the additional note. The inside supports
of 32064c do not fit over a stud, while all other 32064 variants have a bottom
pin that can be placed inside a hollow stud. To illustrate this, the following
assembly can be build with all 32064 variants exept 32064c.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1977_mauro | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 15:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thanks for clarification, exactly why we shouldn't merge them.
In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. Ty should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
What is it about 32064c that is important to you? There is no functional difference,
and I've never seen one of them used so that the bottom of the brick is visible.
There are no transparent colors either.
|
The functional difference is described in the additional note. The inside supports
of 32064c do not fit over a stud, while all other 32064 variants have a bottom
pin that can be placed inside a hollow stud. To illustrate this, the following
assembly can be build with all 32064 variants exept 32064c.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 19:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | What is it about 32064c that is important to you?
|
I was originally mystified by what appeared to be a piece that was introduced
and then replaced by a different variant and then went back to the original.
(What the chairs have now done). Then Turez pointed out to me that it only appeared
that way because it had been improperly split. 32064 is an undetermined entry.
I think I may have mentioned the thousands of dollars. Also across several
years of my life. It was my next big long-running project after almost single-handedly
sorting out 70-some 2536.
I really thought you valued what I was doing. Seriously. I really did.
| | There is no functional difference,
|
You aren't correct.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 13:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 190 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | What is it about 32064c that is important to you?
|
I was originally mystified by what appeared to be a piece that was introduced
and then replaced by a different variant and then went back to the original.
(What the chairs have now done). Then Turez pointed out to me that it only appeared
that way because it had been improperly split. 32064 is an undetermined entry.
I think I may have mentioned the thousands of dollars. Also across several
years of my life. It was my next big long-running project after almost single-handedly
sorting out 70-some 2536.
I really thought you valued what I was doing. Seriously. I really did.
| | There is no functional difference,
|
You aren't correct.
|
Yes, there's technically a functional difference, but we don't distinguish
every last possible functional difference on BrickLink either. See the photo
below. This "build" would not be possible on plates from the 1970s and
1980s because the pins on the underside of plates were solid, not hollow.
So the difference needs to reach a practical level before the catalog splits
the variant. You are correct in saying that 32064 was never completely split,
and the reason for that was because the functional difference was not significant
enough.
In the case of this part:
[p=32064c]
[p=32064b]
the "b" abd "c" entries were simply added to facilitate the sales
of these items for those who wanted them. However, as is the case with many variants
on BrickLink that were semi split during the early years, the specific entry
was the least desirable entry - in other words, the one that people DIDN'T
want. The headlight brick was this way, and so is the current minifigure chair
with sprue.
So the functionality and cosmetic appeal of what we consider the standard 32064
are not assisted by the b and c entries, except that presumably some of the versions
people don't want are siphoned off the mainstream entry, making it more likely
one will find the standard version with the umbrella entry.
If the functionality and cosmetic appeal is that signficant, we really need an
entry like this:
Technic, Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole (+ Shape) and WITHOUT Inside Side Supports
Another practical consideration is to look at the use cases where people would
need such an entry. The axle brick is primarily a functional brick (part of the
Technic line), so the cosmetic considerations are at best secondary. But there
is no short supply of the standard part. So whether someone is looking for the
square (+) axle hole or the bottom without side supports, they can easily obtain
what they want. They are currently in production, literally pouring out of the
factory and available through every venue. This is a huge difference from what
used to be the case with the minifigure chair:
It is a fascinating thing when such variants come back into production, because
they effectively quell the vintage market for that part. Hard core collectors
will of course want the real originals with the various markings on them, etc.,
but the builder who simply wants nicer looking chairs will buy from the mainsteam
pipeline. And that is the reason we are merging that variant, because the use
case has mostly been handled.
The downside of splitting things is that you are effectively forcing sellers
to sort bins and bins of a common part for very little reason. Of course, the
situation will never be too serious, because when the work doesn't pay off,
sellers will simply refuse to sort the variant. But then we have a soggy market
where (strictly speaking) people aren't getting what they ordered.
We definitely appreciate the hard work of opening sealed sets and looking for
variants. This is one of BrickLink's major assets, and we don't want
that to stop. But we've got to be careful about detailed work in the catalog
that obligates the tens of thousands of sellers that need to make a profit to
keep their doors open. One variant isn't going to ruin it for anyone, but
collectively many such variants will put an unecessary burden on top of the painstaking
work required to run a BrickLink store at any level.
Nevertheless, and regardless of these arguments I am making, because of the complaints
about this variant, I am flagging it for further discussion - the same as the
torsos. Maybe we can come up with a better solution for these items.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 13:54 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
Nevertheless, and regardless of these arguments I am making, because of the complaints
about this variant, I am flagging it for further discussion - the same as the
torsos. Maybe we can come up with a better solution for these items.
|
👍
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 14:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
Nevertheless, and regardless of these arguments I am making, because of the complaints
about this variant, I am flagging it for further discussion - the same as the
torsos. Maybe we can come up with a better solution for these items.
|
👍
|
There is hope!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2024 03:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | What is it about 32064c that is important to you?
|
I was originally mystified by what appeared to be a piece that was introduced
and then replaced by a different variant and then went back to the original.
(What the chairs have now done). Then Turez pointed out to me that it only appeared
that way because it had been improperly split. 32064 is an undetermined entry.
I think I may have mentioned the thousands of dollars. Also across several
years of my life. It was my next big long-running project after almost single-handedly
sorting out 70-some 2536.
I really thought you valued what I was doing. Seriously. I really did.
| | There is no functional difference,
|
You aren't correct.
|
Yes, there's technically a functional difference, but we don't distinguish
every last possible functional difference on BrickLink either. See the photo
below. This "build" would not be possible on plates from the 1970s and
1980s because the pins on the underside of plates were solid, not hollow.
So the difference needs to reach a practical level before the catalog splits
the variant. You are correct in saying that 32064 was never completely split,
and the reason for that was because the functional difference was not significant
enough.
In the case of this part:
[p=32064c]
[p=32064b]
the "b" abd "c" entries were simply added to facilitate the sales
of these items for those who wanted them. However, as is the case with many variants
on BrickLink that were semi split during the early years, the specific entry
was the least desirable entry - in other words, the one that people DIDN'T
want. The headlight brick was this way, and so is the current minifigure chair
with sprue.
|
I wouldn't call the addition of 32064c in 2014 the "early years".
| | So the functionality and cosmetic appeal of what we consider the standard 32064
are not assisted by the b and c entries, except that presumably some of the versions
people don't want are siphoned off the mainstream entry, making it more likely
one will find the standard version with the umbrella entry.
If the functionality and cosmetic appeal is that signficant, we really need an
entry like this:
Technic, Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole (+ Shape) and WITHOUT Inside Side Supports
Another practical consideration is to look at the use cases where people would
need such an entry. The axle brick is primarily a functional brick (part of the
Technic line), so the cosmetic considerations are at best secondary. But there
is no short supply of the standard part. So whether someone is looking for the
square (+) axle hole or the bottom without side supports, they can easily obtain
what they want. They are currently in production, literally pouring out of the
factory and available through every venue. This is a huge difference from what
used to be the case with the minifigure chair:
It is a fascinating thing when such variants come back into production, because
they effectively quell the vintage market for that part. Hard core collectors
will of course want the real originals with the various markings on them, etc.,
but the builder who simply wants nicer looking chairs will buy from the mainsteam
pipeline. And that is the reason we are merging that variant, because the use
case has mostly been handled.
The downside of splitting things is that you are effectively forcing sellers
to sort bins and bins of a common part for very little reason. Of course, the
situation will never be too serious, because when the work doesn't pay off,
sellers will simply refuse to sort the variant. But then we have a soggy market
where (strictly speaking) people aren't getting what they ordered.
We definitely appreciate the hard work of opening sealed sets and looking for
variants. This is one of BrickLink's major assets, and we don't want
that to stop. But we've got to be careful about detailed work in the catalog
that obligates the tens of thousands of sellers that need to make a profit to
keep their doors open. One variant isn't going to ruin it for anyone, but
collectively many such variants will put an unecessary burden on top of the painstaking
work required to run a BrickLink store at any level.
Nevertheless, and regardless of these arguments I am making, because of the complaints
about this variant, I am flagging it for further discussion - the same as the
torsos. Maybe we can come up with a better solution for these items.
|
^ That last section above is the best thing I have read in this thread in days.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BensBrickstore | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2024 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Nevertheless, and regardless of these arguments I am making, because of the complaints
about this variant, I am flagging it for further discussion - the same as the
torsos. Maybe we can come up with a better solution for these items.
|
Russell,
Thank-you for deciding to flag this one for further discussion. I wish you would
flag all of them for further discussion. I do think some of the changes are warranted,
but the timeline is much too hasty. There are some changes I don't agree
with, stud variants on minifig heads being a big one.
It is also going to have quite an impact on 3rd party software that we use for
inventory management and syncing. There needs to be more time for those software
developers to adapt to the changes.
I want to spend some time adding notes to our affected listings. I don't
think I'm going to have enough time to do that in the next two weeks, due
to my current workload and catching up on bookkeeping and other tasks. It seems
like it would be much more difficult to add the notes after the changes, since
the items will already be merged, and I'd need to check each item to see
which version I originally had.
Please consider pushing out the date for when these changes will happen. Give
everyone more time!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2024 17:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 182 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, BensBrickstore writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Nevertheless, and regardless of these arguments I am making, because of the complaints
about this variant, I am flagging it for further discussion - the same as the
torsos. Maybe we can come up with a better solution for these items.
|
Russell,
Thank-you for deciding to flag this one for further discussion. I wish you would
flag all of them for further discussion. I do think some of the changes are warranted,
but the timeline is much too hasty. There are some changes I don't agree
with, stud variants on minifig heads being a big one.
It is also going to have quite an impact on 3rd party software that we use for
inventory management and syncing. There needs to be more time for those software
developers to adapt to the changes.
I want to spend some time adding notes to our affected listings. I don't
think I'm going to have enough time to do that in the next two weeks, due
to my current workload and catching up on bookkeeping and other tasks. It seems
like it would be much more difficult to add the notes after the changes, since
the items will already be merged, and I'd need to check each item to see
which version I originally had.
Please consider pushing out the date for when these changes will happen. Give
everyone more time!
|
Thanks for the message.
I have just finished a page that lists all the notes one would potentially need
to add to their listings:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
We will be sending communication out about this to affected users very soon,
probably within the next day or two.
Unless you did not sort out these variants before correctly, you shouldn't
have to look at your parts to confirm the variant. Of course, that isn't
a bad thing to do every once in a while, but I have constructed this list to
save you having to check physical parts. You should just be able to copy and
paste from the Help Page. Even if a part ends up not getting merged, it doesn't
hurt to have a note confirming the variant type.
Regarding the timeline, I'll make a more definitive post (in a new thread)
closer to when the communication goes out. But from a practical sense, we're
not going to be able to change everything in one day anyway - some of the more
detailed situations may take months depending on what sort of images and other
research that may be needed.
We're basically ready to go with the first 2 (Frosted Bricks, Smooth Slopes)
and the last one (renaming and numbering 4 common elements) so those will likely
be completed right off the bat. And they don't really affect many users either.
The last one (and most of the second one) are not something that require any
action on anyone's part.
I'll take a look at extending the time, but I think we would simply extend
the time for some of them, depending on the issue. For issues that have no controversy,
we would want to get started right away.
For the software developers, we can send you lists of things that are supposed
to change. However, like I mentioned before, they are not likely to change all
at once, so I don't know if such a list will be of much help.
You certainly don't want to add the notes after the changes, because then
you really would need to examine all your parts physically and basically relist
that part of your stock.
Regarding the minifigure heads, this is one of the items that is very high priority
and not likely to be removed from the plan. The reason is because of the complications
that arise in the inventory system and the large number of printed patterns on
heads. But I'm willing to hear anyone out on why such a correction is not
a good idea.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2024 02:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
What is it about 32064c that is important to you? There is no functional difference,
and I've never seen one of them used so that the bottom of the brick is visible.
There are no transparent colors either.
|
Of course there is a functional difference. You can't use a 32064c on top
of a 1x2 jumper plate or a 1x1 brick or a 1x1 support, etc., etc. I would bet
that this is important to at least one official build in a set, but there are
just too many sets to go through for such a ubiquitous part to be sure.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 00:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
BrickLink could serve all users if the database was designed correctly. I agree
the site has added too many variants which are pointless and annoying for the
average user, but I've also argued for years that this is only an issue because
of inadequate site design.
If you truly want to move the site forward, then do it the right way. BrickLink
users who don't care about variants should never have to worry about them,
while those who do care should have access to all variants.
This proposal to consolidate variants is the easy way out of a difficult situation.
Instead of the easy way, choose the right way. Redesign the catalog system.
It has needed an overhaul for the last 24 years.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | tec | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 08:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| if other websites can do variants, it's not about problematic variants.
problem is BL design. you're pointing to the right thing here.
and by not solving the core problem, it means we going to see even more variant
kills.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
BrickLink could serve all users if the database was designed correctly. I agree
the site has added too many variants which are pointless and annoying for the
average user, but I've also argued for years that this is only an issue because
of inadequate site design.
If you truly want to move the site forward, then do it the right way. BrickLink
users who don't care about variants should never have to worry about them,
while those who do care should have access to all variants.
This proposal to consolidate variants is the easy way out of a difficult situation.
Instead of the easy way, choose the right way. Redesign the catalog system.
It has needed an overhaul for the last 24 years.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 01:12 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ghyde | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 01:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | tldr:
"We as a platform (aka Bricklink staff) have made the decision for you before
even posting this; despite putting "proposal" in the title, no matter
what you guys say, it's going through regardless - we know no one has really
complained about the way things were beforehand, but it's a necessary change
because... well... we need to show we're doing something around here
(even though the forum spam continues, we don't have a proper dark theme
and everything is based in the EST time zone despite Bricklink being located
in California)
We care about our volunteers, which is why we're essentially erasing all
of the effort they've put in over the years
Thanks for your input though! Don't forget to pay your fees on time, and
if you have anything left over you can pre-order one of the many BDP sets coming
soon "
|
You forgot to add:
"If variants are incompatible with each other, they are going to be merged
regardless of whether it causes incompatibility, and you're out of luck."
Cheers ...
ghyde
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Kenopolis | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 20:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 111 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I've spent the last several hours reading almost all of the comments.
I've thought it over, and I have changed my initial knee jerk reaction of,
"OH NO!" to something more like, "Hmm, okay, that makes sense, but
did you think about..."
Here are my thoughts.
Frosted bricks: Okay, I get it.
Smooth Slopes: Okay, I get it. I often wondered if they were just worn out molds
to begin with.
Connections between studs: Someone made the point that there is a block inside
the stud to prevent bars from going too far into the stud. This seems more functional
than cosmetic. I wonder if this variant should be retained.
Sprue marks: I never understood why this was a thing on the chairs. (More on
variations like sprue marks and mold pips later)
Torsos with Ribs: I am very much opposed to this change. I am fine with making
the new one the default, but this is a very important difference. If I understand
correctly the old one will be retained, but I believe this one needs further
clarification. Classic space is too beloved and sought after to be merged with
new figures.
Inside Supports - Ex. Part 32064c: Why would you merge the part when the notches
on the inside do not fit over a stud. This is clearly a function variation.
In addition, the + vs x shapes are also an important variation. Look at the
windows in set #76419 (New Hogwarts micro castle) you can't use an X shaped
brick here.
X-Shaped Axle Holes: I can agree with this one, IF the hole is on the top of
the brick.
See example above. On the sides of the brick I have to disagree.
Hinges with Teeth - Ex. Part 39893: I can agree with this one.
Duplo Bricks with Bottom Tubes: I can agree with this one, however there is a
distinction in regular bricks, why not duplo?
Blocked and Vented Studs: combining blocked and vented with hollow makes sense
to me, and I can understand it. Minifig heads are the worst. (more on this)
Determined Entries for Very Common Parts - Ex. Part 3068b: Tiles. I can understand
this. New with groove, being simply tiles, and older "without groove"
makes sense to me.
Now I have a few comments.
First of all, understanding variants.
I frequently list vintage parts with terms such as; Pat Pend, Pat Pend Obscured,
void, mold pip side, Slotted tubes, and so on. Your average AFOL probably has
no idea what those mean, but people who are trying to find missing parts to a
vintage set, and want it to be period accurate, look for those. I can understand
getting rid of unnecessary variants, and letting people search for them. Vintage
parts collectors have been doing this for years. However there is one point I
want to make.
This WILL make it harder to find them.
For example: You have Fred and Jane, both looking to buy the same part. However
Fred wants the one with a particular variant, because the others in his set have
that variant. Jane really doesn't care, because she is making a MOC, and
it won't be visible. Fred is using the advanced search to find the parts
he wants, adding the search term. Jane is using a wanted list.
Jane finds a seller who has all the parts she needs using the easy buy feature.
But that seller had listed the part Fred wants with the variation noted. Jane
buys the parts. Now Fred can't find any results because the only person
with that variant just sold it to someone who didn't need it.
The seller doesn't care, because they still made a sale, but the buyer now
has to try to find someone else, and probably pay an even higher premium for
it, if they can even find it.
I'm sorry, that's an extreme example, but you get the point.
There needs to be a universal glossary of search terms that people can put in
notes to find the specific variations you are doing away with. One that is easy
to find. That way sellers who care know what to put in their notes.
Vented/Blocked stud heads listed as alternates in sets:
I wanted to share a thought about this one.
The only reason one is listed as the alternate, is because someone added it as
such.
We really have no idea how many sets have the alternate. By adding it as an alternate,
people automatically think it's more rare, when in reality, they might have
had a 50/50 distribution rate. A note added that says something like, "This
Minifig has been found with both hollow and blocked studs. would go a long way.
I had a few other thoughts, but I wanted to share these while they were on my
mind.
Thanks for the time and effort you put into the list, and I want you to know
that I do appreciate the thought you have put into this, but even the best-laid
plans of mice and men often go awry. Even the most well thought out idea might
miss something important.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 23:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Kenopolis writes:
| |
Vented/Blocked stud heads listed as alternates in sets:
I wanted to share a thought about this one.
The only reason one is listed as the alternate, is because someone added it as
such.
We really have no idea how many sets have the alternate. By adding it as an alternate,
people automatically think it's more rare, when in reality, they might have
had a 50/50 distribution rate.
|
Well yes and this is the main reason I've always taken such issue with the
idea that one stud type is somehow more relevant to a minfigure/set compared
to the other. Ultimately both versions of a head have been printed with the same
decal and manufactured by Lego for exactly the same purpose yet somehow Bricklink
and its community has allowed itself to get into a cycle of insisting one particular
version found in a set or most commonly found in a set is more relevant and should
have overall influence on how the catalog entries are shaped.
Fortunately Bricklink appears to recognize that we shouldn't have ever continued
down this path and for the benefit of the catalog has made the brave decision
to undo what has been put in place for many years which won't come as much
comfort for those that have already spent time/money cataloging everything to
the format of the catalog but better to put a stop to it now than continue along
the same misguided path! Its just a shame that this point of change has taken
so long!
Either way that doesn't mean I don't understand or appreciate why some
people want variants or the retro versions of certain parts but this I see as
a separate issue because wanting to collect variants is one thing but shaping
the catalog around some of these variants is just detrimental to the functionality
of the catalog as a whole!
| | A note added that says something like, "This
Minifig has been found with both hollow and blocked studs. would go a long way.
|
Yes I also think notes to this effect would be helpful but only alongside the
actual head entry itself. I would also include a secondary photo showing the
stud types that are applicable to head in question as outlined here:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447878
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 04:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | This WILL make it harder to find them.
For example: You have Fred and Jane, both looking to buy the same part. However
Fred wants the one with a particular variant, because the others in his set have
that variant. Jane really doesn't care, because she is making a MOC, and
it won't be visible. Fred is using the advanced search to find the parts
he wants, adding the search term. Jane is using a wanted list.
Jane finds a seller who has all the parts she needs using the easy buy feature.
But that seller had listed the part Fred wants with the variation noted. Jane
buys the parts. Now Fred can't find any results because the only person
with that variant just sold it to someone who didn't need it.
The seller doesn't care, because they still made a sale, but the buyer now
has to try to find someone else, and probably pay an even higher premium for
it, if they can even find it.
I'm sorry, that's an extreme example, but you get the point.
|
If the variant was harder to find, and the seller went to the effort of identifying
and labelling it, then they could presumably have charged more for it. Jane would
have overpaid compared to the common part or maybe noticed that part was so much
more than it should be, which would hopefully put her off and pushed her towards
the more common part especiallyif the same seller had it. Fred won't even
know that he missed out, as notes aren't kept in the price guide. Unless
he found it and put it in his cart. In that case, he is the fool for waiting.
This can already happen with many items. If I want a specific Luke Skywalker
in his Tatooine outfit and someone else wants any version in the same outfit,
the first person to buy it gets it. If I waited to build a bigger cart, while
someone else found what they wanted and checked out, then I am the fool.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2024 03:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Kenopolis writes:
| | Inside Supports - Ex. Part 32064c: Why would you merge the part when the notches
on the inside do not fit over a stud. This is clearly a function variation.
In addition, the + vs x shapes are also an important variation. Look at the
windows in set #76419 (New Hogwarts micro castle) you can't use an X shaped
brick here.
|
Very true. I forgot that the 1x2 brick with axle hole has also been used cosmetically
in the past. I definitely wouldn't want an x-shaped axle hole when the +-shaped
axle hole is what is needed.
This is the one reason I don't like the idea of just arbitrarily getting
rid of some variants. You never know when a feature of the current variant of
a part is going to be an absolute requirement for the build of a set as designed.
For example, see 6628a and 6628b. Many of the modern, highly collectible Technic
sets absolutely require 6628a to be able to be built as designed by placing a
bar into the pin end of the part.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Kenopolis | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2024 03:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Kenopolis writes:
| | Inside Supports - Ex. Part 32064c: Why would you merge the part when the notches
on the inside do not fit over a stud. This is clearly a function variation.
In addition, the + vs x shapes are also an important variation. Look at the
windows in set #76419 (New Hogwarts micro castle) you can't use an X shaped
brick here.
|
Very true. I forgot that the 1x2 brick with axle hole has also been used cosmetically
in the past. I definitely wouldn't want an x-shaped axle hole when the +-shaped
axle hole is what is needed.
This is the one reason I don't like the idea of just arbitrarily getting
rid of some variants. You never know when a feature of the current variant of
a part is going to be an absolute requirement for the build of a set as designed.
For example, see 6628a and 6628b. Many of the modern, highly collectible Technic
sets absolutely require 6628a to be able to be built as designed by placing a
bar into the pin end of the part.
|
OH!!! I was wondering why that warranted a variation. (I don't have a lot
of technic sets.)
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Mads.A | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 03:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
As a seller and vintage collector, I can only say that limiting the variants
is the wrong decision, you should make more of it instead and specify in which
time period the different variants were used.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WhiteHorseMatt | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 06:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Mads.A writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
As a seller and vintage collector, I can only say that limiting the variants
is the wrong decision, you should make more of it instead and specify in which
time period the different variants were used.
|
If we had a database that supported tags we could have the best of both worlds.
I could list 10 4085 and a buyer that just needed 8 1x1 with clip would buy and
be happy.
Currently if I listed 3 4085a 3 4085b and 4 4085d I wouldn't sell as the
quantity wouldnt come up in the search.
If I could use tags to distinguish the parts then a buyer who didn't care
could buy all of them, and a vintage set completer could still search easily
for the variants they want and buy those specific ones.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 08:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WhiteHorseMatt writes:
| | If we had a database that supported tags we could have the best of both worlds.
|
Yes. They just need to do the work.
Go look at Brickset. Every single alternate number in our catalog is actually
a different piece. And Brickset has the opposite problem. It doesn't seem
to know that a lot of them are pretty much identical.
We should have every piece just like Brickset does, but a database architecture
that connects them as the user sees fit. It would allow Bricklink to remain
a preeminent source of LEGO information and allow the user to dumb it down if
they want. I haven't look really closely at the details here. I saw enough
to start thinking I may be done working on the Bricklink catalog. I have wasted
a LOT of my time getting them information that they don't want and in the
future I'll never know if I am wasting my time. They accept my work now,
but might throw it away later.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 17:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I saw enough
to start thinking I may be done working on the Bricklink catalog. I have wasted
a LOT of my time getting them information that they don't want and in the
future I'll never know if I am wasting my time. They accept my work now,
but might throw it away later.
|
Selfish me would like you to continue your work, but I totally get the frustration
of seeing your work undone and the total lack of acknowledgment and appreciation
from BL. You must do what is good for you. Whatever you decide, a massive THANK
YOU for your work.
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2024 03:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 112 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I saw enough
to start thinking I may be done working on the Bricklink catalog. I have wasted
a LOT of my time getting them information that they don't want and in the
future I'll never know if I am wasting my time. They accept my work now,
but might throw it away later.
|
Selfish me would like you to continue your work, but I totally get the frustration
of seeing your work undone and the total lack of acknowledgment and appreciation
from BL. You must do what is good for you. Whatever you decide, a massive THANK
YOU for your work.
Niek.
|
Hear, hear.
Jonathan is one of the biggest assets this site has ever had and any loss of
contributions from him will be an enormous loss for the entire LEGO community
now and into the future.
All you need to know for how important he is can be gleaned from the "Credits"
page, which basically displays BrickLink's top-ten lists for contributors:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogMembers.asp?utm_content=subnav
Out of 15 contribution categories tracked by the site since the early days, his
moniker resides in 14 of them. And in those 14, he is #1 or #2 in 11 of them.
It is an astounding amount of work.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 17:45 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | rainbowmist | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 18:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | If Bricklink staff consider themselves to be "the platform" and make
decisions without actually consulting us (the actual userbase) then Bricklink
staff should be the ones inventorying sets, adding stuff to the catalog, etc.
After all, they're the ones getting paid for it... it seems as though they
have no regard for the effort that was put in from volunteers, so perhaps it
should be left to them to figure out since they're so quick to throw literal
decades of effort away in an instant (just so people aren't slightly inconvenienced...
ironic, isn't it?)
|
+1
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | brickotronic | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2024 18:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I fully understand the problem that you want to solve, but I don't agree
with the solution.
You can implement a feature which makes consolidating optional. Introduce an
official "undetermined" type for such pieces. Sellers that don't
want to consolidate, use this one. Buyers that don't care are able to add
this to their wanted list and should get offered all variants of that piece regardless
if the store has listed it as a specific variant or the undetermined one.
This way, you give both the sellers and the buyers the option to be more specific
with the mould types if they want to. As a buyer, I want to have the option to
buy a specific mould. As a seller, I might want to put in the extra effort to
list them separately to attract more buyers and get a higher price for the more
rare mould types.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | spacepolice | | Posted: | Jan 16, 2024 06:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please don't do this. I like to restore old sets and want the correct parts
from the time period. If this is done it'll affect my buying negatively.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | HoneyLizard | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, spacepolice writes:
| | Please don't do this. I like to restore old sets and want the correct parts
from the time period. If this is done it'll affect my buying negatively.
|
I understand where you are coming from but these catalog changes do not make
it any harder than it is already to restore old sets. You can't find items
in "old" white, yellow, red, ... etc. even though vintage pieces clearly
look a different shade. You can't differenciate between plates with open
or blocked bottom tubes. You can't even differenciate inverted slopes with
thick or thin tubes. Newer plates and bricks have half round mould lines on the
bottom. 70s bricks have different Lego logos on the studs. Old minifig heads
can have more blocky or more rounded heads with solid studs. None of these things
are reflected in the catalog. Bricks have vastly different styles of bottom tubes
based on era.
Let's be real here, completing old sets requires knowledge about sets nowhere
found on the internet and therefore only works from your own collection or with
a VERY accomodating seller. Or your time period parts are maybe not as time period
accurate as you think they are
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | atkk | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2024 21:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 124 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| How will our inventories change with the merge?
For example, if I have the following:
10x 4079b Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 with Center Sprue Mark
and 5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
Will my inventory now be:
15x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
or will I have 2 separate entries
10x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2024 23:34 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 201 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, atkk writes:
| | How will our inventories change with the merge?
For example, if I have the following:
10x 4079b Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 with Center Sprue Mark
and 5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
Will my inventory now be:
15x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
or will I have 2 separate entries
10x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
|
It will be 2 separate entries. And if you follow the Help page for adding comments:
10x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 [with Center Sprue Mark]
5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | atkk | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2024 22:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Will the comment be added automatically, or do we have to do it to each one (if
we want)?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, atkk writes:
| | How will our inventories change with the merge?
For example, if I have the following:
10x 4079b Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 with Center Sprue Mark
and 5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
Will my inventory now be:
15x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
or will I have 2 separate entries
10x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
|
It will be 2 separate entries. And if you follow the Help page for adding comments:
10x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 [with Center Sprue Mark]
5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2024 05:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, atkk writes:
| | Will the comment be added automatically, or do we have to do it to each one (if
we want)?
|
I think no... If you want the comments you would need to put them yourself.
| |
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, atkk writes:
| | How will our inventories change with the merge?
For example, if I have the following:
10x 4079b Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 with Center Sprue Mark
and 5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
Will my inventory now be:
15x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
or will I have 2 separate entries
10x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
|
It will be 2 separate entries. And if you follow the Help page for adding comments:
10x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 [with Center Sprue Mark]
5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Familybuild | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2024 11:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, atkk writes:
| | Will the comment be added automatically, or do we have to do it to each one (if
we want)?
|
I think no... If you want the comments you would need to put them yourself.
|
Yes, this is something each seller will need to do manually.
|
this could be done automaticlly, thats where coders are for
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | icm | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 12:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, atkk writes:
| | Will the comment be added automatically, or do we have to do it to each one (if
we want)?
|
I think no... If you want the comments you would need to put them yourself.
|
Yes, this is something each seller will need to do manually.
|
So, we go from one fairly simple and easy thing (noting which variant of a part
you have, and listing it for sale with that variant, which is a distinct part
in the catalog) to one awfully labor-intensive manual process that will need
to be done with everything, every time! How does that make sense?
That doesn't make anything easier for buyers or sellers!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 12:57 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, icm writes:
| | So, we go from one fairly simple and easy thing (noting which variant of a part
you have, and listing it for sale with that variant, which is a distinct part
in the catalog) to one awfully labor-intensive manual process that will need
to be done with everything, every time! How does that make sense?
That doesn't make anything easier for buyers or sellers!
|
Correct. It's much worse than that. Over time, BL staff admitted they anticipate
the distinctions going away altogether (as sellers refuse, get too tired, retire,
or as new sellers do not know or care to note the difference). It's erasing
perfectly useful information for the gain of absolutely nothing.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2024 22:32 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Variants - SURVEY RESULTS | | Viewed: | 167 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As we all know, the decision was already made before members were ever consulted.
Still, as an exercise in sharing meaningless facts, here is how BrickLink members
feel.
A total of 75 people shared thoughts (including OP).
13.4% approved of the decision.
16% had no opinion.
24% had mixed feelings.
46.6% disapproved.
Result: over 70% of respondents did not approve of these changes or had
mixed feelings. But . . . the "platform" approves, so I suppose we're
all good.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ghyde | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2024 23:19 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Variants - SURVEY RESULTS | | Viewed: | 97 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | As we all know, the decision was already made before members were ever consulted.
Still, as an exercise in sharing meaningless facts, here is how BrickLink members
feel.
A total of 75 people shared thoughts (including OP).
13.4% approved of the decision.
16% had no opinion.
24% had mixed feelings.
46.6% disapproved.
Result: over 70% of respondents did not approve of these changes or had
mixed feelings. But . . . the "platform" approves, so I suppose we're
all good.
|
I will point out that I was not consulted as to whether I wanted to be surveyed.
If anyone else feels that they were not consulted on whether they wanted to be
surveyed, then respond with your thoughts on the matter, but keep them civil
and without expletives.
Not that it matters, if these changes have to happen, then they will happen.
Cheers ...
ghyde
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2024 06:14 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Variants - SURVEY RESULTS | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | What??? I posted a lot and said it; I'm UBER happy of this change! |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2024 07:39 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Variants - SURVEY RESULTS | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | What??? I posted a lot and said it; I'm UBER happy of this change!
|
Surveys here are meaningless anyway unless they are run by an admin. User ignore
lists or hidden topics mean that not everyone sees it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2024 07:16 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Variants - SURVEY RESULTS | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | As we all know, the decision was already made before members were ever consulted.
Still, as an exercise in sharing meaningless facts, here is how BrickLink members
feel.
A total of 75 people shared thoughts (including OP).
13.4% approved of the decision.
16% had no opinion.
24% had mixed feelings.
46.6% disapproved.
Result: over 70% of respondents did not approve of these changes or had
mixed feelings. But . . . the "platform" approves, so I suppose we're
all good.
|
Hardly the most scientific or accurate survey to go by though is it? I mean
these results only reflect on the opinions of those in the forum. Yet the forum
mainly represents your hardcore Lego enthusiast who is far more likely to be
passionate about variants and/or already contributed to the catalog in some way.
It certainly doesn’t represent the general populous of buyers, sellers, collectors
who no doubt just want an efficiently run site that is simple to use besides
which most of these people will not even have an opinion on the matter meaning
they simply rely on the powers that be to make the right judgment calls when
it comes to how best to serve the Lego community as a whole!
Lego is one of the biggest selling toys around the world and so if you hold that
thought for a moment this survey (if we're right to call it that) by the
forum regulars is a drop in the ocean when it comes to catering to your average
Lego user! Its also a bit like ONLY asking dog owners whether they prefer cats
or dogs? In translation we're pretty much only asking those that understand
or are passionate about variants whether they want to keep these particular variants
or not?
Your right about one thing though in that I have little doubt that Bricklink
had already made the decision prior to announcing these plans in the forum but
at the same time they have to think about the bigger picture and being swayed
too heavily by just the most vocal in forum is at times just going to hinder
the progression, functionality and vison they have for the site as a whole!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | leggodtshop | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Will there be a list of all changes/mergers available?
Or is it already available?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, leggodtshop writes:
| | Will there be a list of all changes/mergers available?
Or is it already available?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
Somewhere hidden in this thread
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, leggodtshop writes:
| | Will there be a list of all changes/mergers available?
Or is it already available?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
Somewhere hidden in this thread
|
More complete list: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629 (linked in
the mail too ).
That’s the list of all the entries that will disappear (and the texts you can
add to your comments, manually, one by one…).
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, leggodtshop writes:
| | Will there be a list of all changes/mergers available?
Or is it already available?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
Somewhere hidden in this thread
|
More complete list: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629 (linked in
the mail too ).
That’s the list of all the entries that will disappear (and the texts you can
add to your comments, manually, one by one…).
|
Thanks, I had missed that.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:46 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, leggodtshop writes:
| | Will there be a list of all changes/mergers available?
Or is it already available?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
Somewhere hidden in this thread
|
Most of these changes make some kind of sense.
The transparent frosted parts use the same moulds as bricks with solid colors.
The frost is simply hidden on the inside wall in those cases. Even as a 2x4 collector,
I don't think the BrickLink catalog needs to have these versions.
The smooth slopes are a variation and I think that there are some intermediate
versions also.
The parts with connections between the studs are also a design improvement/variation.
Interesting, but I can understand the merger.
The chair with sprue mark is a similar part design variation.
Torsos with ribs... Double feelings about this. It feels important to distinguish
between original versions and re-issues even when there is no difference in print.
Parts with inside support.
32064c currently on hold (I think it should remain separate)
10247 looks like an insignificant variation,
46212 probably also...
The x-shaped axle holes can also be seen as a variation. There are a few versions
of the axle holes and we don't separate all of them. Different shapes can
be used for decorative purposes though.
The merger of the hinges with either 7 or 9 teeth just feels wrong. Those
have different part numbers and are not difficult to identify. Here we lose catalog
detail and accuracy.
Duplo brick with bottom tube also interesting but ultimately insignificant.
Parts with blocked or vented studs. Functionally the same, so probably it's
justified to merge them...
Renaming/renumbering those last few parts makes things easier. I don't have
an issue with that as long as the older versions still exist in the catalog.
----
That said... I tried to collect a sample of all... just because I am interested
in variations like these.
In many cases, when LEGO introduces a new version of a part with a new part number,
I think that BrickLink is to quick in merging them into existing variations.
I'd keep them separate until I am certain that they can be merged, instead
of trying to split them later.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | That said... I tried to collect a sample of all [unprinted]... just because I am interested
in variations like these.
|
I still have not found this sub-version of 3626b
[p=3626b]
After the merger, that will become even more challenging...
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | rcarhart | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Are there any additional "instructions"? Do I need to change my On
Hand balances to go from one to the other?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | grammasbricks | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Great work Russell! We agree with this change and support the proposal going
forward.
Gramma's Bricks
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BrickDom | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This must be a April´s foul.
As a seller who is taking it very serious with variants please let it as it is.
The `with`or `without Groove`Variant is very important for my customers.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | e.d.k. | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
|
[...]
Please don't do this! I am not a seller, but a buyer. Usually I don't
care about mould variants... but sometimes I do, e.g. usually I don't want
older parts for generic builds, but conversely, sometimes I specifically want
that exact older part to complete an old set!
Once homogenized, I will get stuff I don't want either way with no proper
way of searching.
Are sellers ready for the storm of questions to ensure all 50 different Lots
consisting of 1500 parts in total comply to what the buyer actually wants?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | stevetq2 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 97 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Many people want to know the difference between tiles with grooves as the ones
without are from older sets and some people want the original part without grooves
and some want them WITH grooves for newer sets (same goes for bricks with X or
+ axle holes. In my opinion this is a RETROGRADE Step for no good reason.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | stevetq2 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 97 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| So somebody has decided that having a distinction between tiles with and without
grooves is UNIMPORTANT, well I can tell you IT IS, if I send one without a groove
to the majority of people I WILL GET A COMPLAINT. Nobody in the BrickLink community
(and those are the important people) has asked for this to be done.
In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:
| | Many people want to know the difference between tiles with grooves as the ones
without are from older sets and some people want the original part without grooves
and some want them WITH grooves for newer sets (same goes for bricks with X or
+ axle holes. In my opinion this is a RETROGRADE Step for no good reason.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:44 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:
| | So somebody has decided that having a distinction between tiles with and without
grooves is UNIMPORTANT, well I can tell you IT IS, if I send one without a groove
to the majority of people I WILL GET A COMPLAINT. Nobody in the BrickLink community
(and those are the important people) has asked for this to be done.
|
The parts will be renamed, but the version without groove will remain in the
catalog.
The initial message about what changes were intended was just poor, so everyone
got a lot more confused than would have been needed.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:
| | Many people want to know the difference between tiles with grooves as the ones
without...
|
Fun stats, mine are literally: zero asked for any without groove, while
40K buyers bought the ones with groove.
I'm sorry to tell you, LEGO is mainly used to play, create and build.
Collectors, specialists of the brand history and sellers/buyers for old Sets
(on eBay?) are really really a tiny tiny minority.
It's not vain or stupid, at the very contrary.
It's just 99.99% of people wish the current version.
While this, some sellers like one I talked to, in France, has 1000x+ 3001old
New (brand New) which are just NOT (neither old or New). Same for 3068a New which
aren't.
That also is much a problem.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:01 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:
| | Many people want to know the difference between tiles with grooves as the ones
without...
|
Fun stats, mine are literally: zero asked for any without groove, while
40K buyers bought the ones with groove.
|
I have bought both. Without groove to restore old sets, with grooves to build
and play. They are both useful.
| | I'm sorry to tell you, LEGO is mainly used to play, create and build.
|
True. It is a toy.
| | Collectors, specialists of the brand history and sellers/buyers for old Sets
(on eBay?) are really really a tiny tiny minority.
|
And they use BrickLink because it has the best catalog.
Ever wonder why the pre-1965-ish sets don't sell well here? It is simply
because the catalog is not accurate and detailed enough to help collectors find
what they are looking for.
| | It's not vain or stupid, at the very contrary.
It's just 99.99% of people wish the current version.
While this, some sellers like one I talked to, in France, has 1000x+ 3001old
New (brand New) which are just NOT (neither old or New). Same for 3068a New which
aren't.
That also is much a problem.
|
Some sellers don't know their product, provide poor service or just make
a simple human mistake. It happens.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:
| | Many people want to know the difference between tiles with grooves as the ones
without...
|
Fun stats, mine are literally: zero asked for any without groove, while
40K buyers bought the ones with groove.
I'm sorry to tell you, LEGO is mainly used to play, create and build.
Collectors, specialists of the brand history and sellers/buyers for old Sets
(on eBay?) are really really a tiny tiny minority.
It's not vain or stupid, at the very contrary.
It's just 99.99% of people wish the current version.
While this, some sellers like one I talked to, in France, has 1000x+ 3001old
New (brand New) which are just NOT (neither old or New). Same for 3068a New which
aren't.
That also is much a problem.
|
For crying out loud, PLEASE STOP spreading this incorrect information. You are
basing these ridiculous statements on heavy biases.
Bias #1) You literally only sell New parts. The vast majority of buyers who want
vintage parts buy them Used because of the huge price differences, and because
they're usually completing old used sets. You don't even offer any tiles
without groove for sale, and your story of talking to one seller is anecdotal
at best and completely misleading. The sales history says otherwise, especially
in the U.S.
Bias #2) Vintage mold variations don't sell nearly as well in Europe. I separate
the price guide by currency, and I've looked at nearly all of the old molds
at some point. Almost universally, U.S. buyers want vintage variations at a much
higher rate. Sometimes they're virtually unavailable in the U.S. while there
are 50-100 stores in Europe listing the part. This is true of almost all pre-2005
variations, but especially pre-1990 variations.
Bias #3) Your customers might be "99.99%" people who just want to "play
and create" (probably untrue), but that's not the case for a store that
offers mostly used parts. As one of the biggest used-parts stores in the U.S.,
for many stores like mine, the majority of buyers are collectors, people completing
old sets or adding to a display for them, people completing sets to sell them,
people building MOCs based on old properties like Rock Raiders or Bionicles,
and people who want very precise parts including mold differences. The majority.
Not "0.01%". THE MAJORITY. Over 50% of my customers. Similar to how I
already corrected your assertion that customers don't generally want Old
Grays and Old Browns a few weeks ago -- somewhere around 40% of my orders
contain a part in one of these colors. And again, old colors sell better in the
U.S. than Europe.
Are the majority of buyers on Bricklink not collectors? Sure. Do the majority
not care about mold differences? Sure. Is that number 99%? Or 90%? No way. Not
even close. They're a minority, but not a tiny minority.
Go check out the price guide on the worldwide sales of 3069a Black Tile 1x2 Without
Groove -- used and new -- and then get back to me on how people don't
want tiles without grooves.
You really need to stop asserting ignorant things, buddy. You're part of
the problem.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Bias #1) You literally only sell New parts. The vast majority of buyers who want
vintage parts buy them Used because of the huge price differences, and because
they're usually completing old used sets. You don't even offer any tiles
without groove for sale, and your story of talking to one seller is anecdotal
at best and completely misleading. The sales history says otherwise, especially
in the U.S.
|
I agree, but I sold Used for 5/10 years maybe.
| | Bias #2) Vintage mold variations don't sell nearly as well in Europe. I separate
the price guide by currency, and I've looked at nearly all of the old molds
at some point. Almost universally, U.S. buyers want vintage variations at a much
higher rate. Sometimes they're virtually unavailable in the U.S. while there
are 50-100 stores in Europe listing the part. This is true of almost all pre-2005
variations, but especially pre-1990 variations.
|
Ah then we've to discuss what's the US market compared to the rest of
the world?
| | Bias #3) Your customers might be "99.99%" people who just want to "play
and create" (probably untrue)
|
So what I say is untrue.
Happy you noticed and told me!
| | Go check out the price guide on the worldwide sales of 3069a Black Tile 1x2 Without
Groove -- used and new -- and then get back to me on how people don't
want tiles without grooves.
|
3069a Black sold 32+648, approx 700 say.
3069b Black sold 620497+77431, approx 700,000 or 700K say.
A problem with Maths?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Wow, seriously? I have a problem with math when you're comparing absolute
numbers instead of relative numbers and percentages? Of course 3069b has more
sold in absolute numbers -- they're more available by a factor of thousands!
Comparing absolute numbers is beyond irrelevant. Maybe try looking at the total
number of sold 3069a Black compared to the total number available, make a percentage
out of it, and then do that with 3069b? See how, relatively, 3069a sell much
better? See how 3069a Black have sold at nearly a 300% rate in the last 6 months
compared to currently-available parts, whereas 3069b have sold at about a 50%
rate? Understanding use cases for absolute numbers versus relative numbers is
basic stats and probabilities, dude.
Stop being so insufferable. You didn't actually respond to any of my points
except that one, because you can't actually refute them. Instead, you just
wrote a few snarky sentences that don't actually counter any of my points.
Your biases are clear, you keep quoting irrelevant info from the price guide
rather than actually relevant statistics, and you're posting ridiculous claims
with no basis in reality. I have no idea why you're so biased against vintage
colors and vintage parts, but please just stop.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:34 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Wow, seriously? I have a problem with math when you're comparing absolute
numbers instead of relative numbers and percentages? Of course 3069b has more
sold in absolute numbers -- they're more available by a factor of thousands!
|
If it's sold more it's just because it's more available!?
It can't simply be because people want them more?
Lord.
| | I have no idea why you're so biased against vintage colors and vintage parts, but please just stop.
|
Frankly? I'm 61 - But there's absolutely nothing vintage I'm interested
in.
I've fun to still build like every week with Tiles with Groove, really.
Just like the vast majority of people I know, who are buyers or not.
Of course, me like you, can only tell his own reality.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| So you have no grasp over statistics. Okay. Loud and clear. Maybe stop trying
to use them to prove your points if you don't understand something as simple
as relative vs. absolute numbers and how they're applicable to sales stats.
Maybe try using the phrase "I was wrong" sometime. Over the last few
years, I've seen you consistently assert things on this forum that have no
basis in reality, and when someone provides evidence to the contrary, you move
the goalposts or respond rudely. You can be wrong, dude. You frequently are.
You are on the subject of vintage parts.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I have no idea why you're so biased against vintage
colors and vintage parts, but please just stop.
|
I took a look at your used 3010 1x4 bricks. How does a buyer know which variant
they will get, as you don't differentiate between them? A very tiny minority
of buyers care about the difference in those but have never been able to know
which ones they get. The vast majority will not notice. These new merges will
be similar.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I have no idea why you're so biased against vintage
colors and vintage parts, but please just stop.
|
I took a look at your used 3010 1x4 bricks. How does a buyer know which variant
they will get, as you don't differentiate between them? A very tiny minority
of buyers care about the difference in those but have never been able to know
which ones they get. The vast majority will not notice. These new merges will
be similar.
|
As stated in my terms, "I will fulfill special requests for parts from specific
eras, specific shades of color, minor unlisted mold differences, etc. if I have
them available." I've received requests for all sorts of minor differences,
including the tube differences on the undersides of 1x* bricks. I've received
general requests for parts from a certain era, like 1980s bricks, and used my
knowledge of the logos, slight differences in embossing, and minor color differences
to date and send period-accurate parts.
If you read my previous replies in this thread, I'm of two minds concerning
the pending merges. Some (like smooth slopes and frosted lines) are ones I've
advocated for merging before. Others (like 32064, the seat sprues, and the 9-
vs. 7-teeth hinges) I'm more dubious about. I agree that determined buyers
will still be able to hunt down the parts they want because of sellers like me
-- my issues are more around changing the set inventories.
Again, I can see both perspectives on the merges. I'm not a huge fan, but
I've accepted that it's happening. My issue with 1001bricks is not about
the merges. It's that he is repeatedly making factually incorrect statements
about vintage parts sales, drawing conclusions from biased experiences and a
poor understanding of the price guide and statistics in general. I've spent
hundreds and hundreds of hours (literally) studying how vintage parts sales work
on Bricklink, and frankly, I'm offended that he thinks he knows more about
the subject. Understanding how sales of retired parts and colors work is the
basis of my selling strategy and of my entire store. And on top of that, his
claims are just extremely misleading. There are a lot of good arguments as to
why these merges should take place, so why use poor and inaccurate arguments
like his instead?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Wow, seriously? I have a problem with math when you're comparing absolute
numbers instead of relative numbers and percentages? Of course 3069b has more
sold in absolute numbers -- they're more available by a factor of thousands!
Comparing absolute numbers is beyond irrelevant. Maybe try looking at the total
number of sold 3069a Black compared to the total number available, make a percentage
out of it, and then do that with 3069b? See how, relatively, 3069a sell much
better? See how 3069a Black have sold at nearly a 300% rate in the last 6 months
compared to currently-available parts, whereas 3069b have sold at about a 50%
rate? Understanding use cases for absolute numbers versus relative numbers is
basic stats and probabilities, dude.
Stop being so insufferable. You didn't actually respond to any of my points
except that one, because you can't actually refute them. Instead, you just
wrote a few snarky sentences that don't actually counter any of my points.
Your biases are clear, you keep quoting irrelevant info from the price guide
rather than actually relevant statistics, and you're posting ridiculous claims
with no basis in reality. I have no idea why you're so biased against vintage
colors and vintage parts, but please just stop.
|
Watch this video and see if it changes your mind.(please watch it to the end)
https://youtu.be/aGRxNX8Cg_o?si=7FyEwweZ1xmmDq-e
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Pluribus7158 | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 08:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| +1
In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:
| | Many people want to know the difference between tiles with grooves as the ones
without are from older sets and some people want the original part without grooves
and some want them WITH grooves for newer sets (same goes for bricks with X or
+ axle holes. In my opinion this is a RETROGRADE Step for no good reason.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | osca0490 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This seems like a really bad idea. It'll make piecing together old sets much
more difficult. The people that use bricklink care about Lego and removing information
about the mold variants seems like a change that benefits no one. Sure It'll
make it easier to sort bricks as a seller, but as a buyer I now have to write
and ask if specific mold variants are available, making it more complicated for
both buyer and seller.
Please reconsider this change.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ClimberL | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 00:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This proposed change is such a bad idea! I agree with almost everyone here in
this thread!
In Catalog, osca0490 writes:
| | This seems like a really bad idea. It'll make piecing together old sets much
more difficult. The people that use bricklink care about Lego and removing information
about the mold variants seems like a change that benefits no one. Sure It'll
make it easier to sort bricks as a seller, but as a buyer I now have to write
and ask if specific mold variants are available, making it more complicated for
both buyer and seller.
Please reconsider this change.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Jaabo | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I vote no. This is trampling on 20+ years of hard work. Are all the sets from
the60s and 70s going to be listed with modern part equivalents? Thats bad if
true
Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | littlefeisty1 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | TmfS | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As mainly a customer on bricklink, this solution is not ideal. I am a purist
and want the exact part that came with a set. I think you could put a field key
in the parts search to allow variant substitutions. This seems to be more of
a lazy solution rather than elegant one. What would be more helpful is if I could
preform the "easy buy" option within one country.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | littlefeisty1 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 15:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I'm new to the seller side so need some help understanding this from the
buyers side. If a buyer is looking for a specific part, like "Sprue Marks
Ex. Part 4079b" how will they order that part after the merge?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Either by looking for a note in the description from the few that will add one
or by contacting the seller and asking, risking being ignored and/or placed on
their stoplist.
In Catalog, littlefeisty1 writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I'm new to the seller side so need some help understanding this from the
buyers side. If a buyer is looking for a specific part, like "Sprue Marks
Ex. Part 4079b" how will they order that part after the merge?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | littlefeisty1 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Either by looking for a note in the description from the few that will add one
or by contacting the seller and asking, risking being ignored and/or placed on
their stoplist.
|
Thanks Stuart....but that sucks. If someone's trying to complete a specific
set by ordering a specific part, it sounds like a time consuming task on our
end. Like, "where's the sprue mark piece....WHERE????? Or else they
get the mini-fig chair that isn't authentic to the set.
| |
In Catalog, littlefeisty1 writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I'm new to the seller side so need some help understanding this from the
buyers side. If a buyer is looking for a specific part, like "Sprue Marks
Ex. Part 4079b" how will they order that part after the merge?
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I’m against the changes but like most things put out for public discussion by
a business, councils, governments etc. it’s almost certainly a done deal.
My apologies to those involved if I’m wrong.
I’ve always tried to list all variations correctly, missed some at times, adding
some not recognised by BL prior to these changes.
This will continue in my store once reopened, notes added until I close for good,
sadly I will stick to selling in the U.K. to make it easy for me.
BL was what I was looking for when I reignited my passion for Lego, originally
as a buyer but upgraded to a seller to finance future interests in parts and
sets.
My aim was to keep everything I had as period accurate, this may not be possible
in future with standardised set contents.
In Catalog, littlefeisty1 writes:
| | In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Either by looking for a note in the description from the few that will add one
or by contacting the seller and asking, risking being ignored and/or placed on
their stoplist.
|
Thanks Stuart....but that sucks. If someone's trying to complete a specific
set by ordering a specific part, it sounds like a time consuming task on our
end. Like, "where's the sprue mark piece....WHERE????? Or else they
get the mini-fig chair that isn't authentic to the set.
| |
In Catalog, littlefeisty1 writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I'm new to the seller side so need some help understanding this from the
buyers side. If a buyer is looking for a specific part, like "Sprue Marks
Ex. Part 4079b" how will they order that part after the merge?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BrickDeals | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
If we are at a point where this is a priority for Bricklink, why can't we
get other things that have been asked for repeatedly?
The big one for me is sales tax exemption. I paid $2,000 in tax that I did not
legally owe last year, because Bricklink wants to interfere in a transaction
between two separate parties.
Regarding, the merging of variants, I say no. The system isn't broken, and
it doesn't need fixing. These variations are important for people trying
to build older sets.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | The big one for me is sales tax exemption. I paid $2,000 in tax that I did not
legally owe last year, because Bricklink wants to interfere in a transaction
between two separate parties.
|
BrickLink is "AS IS".
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | quadratique | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:05 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is a terrible idea. Instead, please introduce a hierarchy of part variant,
where variant is optional. Not a major development, really: part will have color,
condition AnD Variant moving forward. If sellers/buyers want to use it, they
will. If they don't want to use it, then they will skip defining. This decision
to merge seems just simply lazy. I understand development takes time, but honestly,
what's the rush here?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | sonnich | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Looking at the list, a picture example for help would be useful
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
It is just codes and numbers - I feel lost
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | zeijlemaker | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Bad idea.
I have a lot of reasons many already spoken on the forum. Too bad I can not "like"
most of them.
Just don't do it, especially minifigs.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I was unaware this was about to happen (because I was away for a month).
My first reaction, is that this is being done to simplify the number of catalog
entries (by not making one for each variant), which in some ways is a good thing.
My second reaction, is that this is a way to not touch the catalog schema, and
to keep the catalog effectively flat. That keeps the underlying code from having
to undergo large scale renovation, but it also opens the door to a variant description
structure that is ad-hoc, and may end up being inconsistent (across multiple
sellers). How one seller describes a variant may not be how another describes
the same variant (and potentially language differences get into this). This is
a Hobson's Choice of a problem. This is no clear solution that will
keep everyone on the straight and narrow. I'm not sure if I will take the
time to distinguish the variants (as in some situations I have already made the
decision to not be a variant specific seller). Part of this goes back to the
price that common parts are fetching vs the time required to meet the standard.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Sarahginn | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| So if I'm having to write the comments how do I know which part number to
apply it to? I don't want to spend hours updating to get it wrong and the
list published doesn't really help me to prepare.
How will these deletions effect those who sell across other platforms??
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | reni3008 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I cant find some really important answers:
So assuming i have separate lots with different variants, what price will be
used after the merge?
What happens with the remark field? I use it for my storage bin numbers and other
informations. So will both remarks be visible after the merge?
If yes, what happens, when the two remark fields merged are longer than the currently
allowed length (think its 256 characters)
If not not, that will be a disaster
These are essential issue/questions and could become a hughe problem for me,
if Information there is lost
Please clarify this. Thanks
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Abrickadabra | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Has consideration been given to the API in this project? It seems to get virtually
zero maintenance so I want to highlight at least one pertinent issue. Currently
when part codes change (their main endpoint identifier) they become 404s, rather
than advising of a part change or returning the previous item. Are there
plans to change part codes as part of this restructuring? If so it will likely
make the API an absolute battleground to navigate for a while.
Website pages suffer from that same problem too - they just 404 when the code
is changed rather than redirect, which is even more outrageous. The amount of
SEO juice Bricklink loses that way is careless and it's so trivial to implement.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | OwlBearMom | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please do not do this. Sellers can and do note in their terms whether they distinguish
between mold variants. Buyers often pay a bit more for the extra labor sellers
put into differentiating molds. And we appreciate it.
As an historical resource, the differentiations are irreplaceable.
As a buyer, I can get sets with inaccurate from eBay or Marketplace or Bricks
& Minifigs. I am incredibly grateful to be able to come here and verify my collection.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | C13INTZ | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Late to the party, and there's a lot to read through that I don't have
the time for so sorry if this has been addressed, but I'm not completely
familiar with the search functions of this website. I feel the need to ask if
there a way to enter potential, user entered, descriptions in the search bar?
Or this the search bar limited to Bricklink determined titles? For example, set
5958 Mummy's Tomb, can I only search this item with either "5958"
or "Mummy's Tomb" or is it possible for me to search "5958 no
box" to find listings with that added descriptor? Can I add asterisk or something
around the user entered descriptor to search for what I'm looking for? If
I can only search via the set/part number I see this being a massive problem
for the collector's market. If you're saying my only option is to scroll
through every listing or ctrl+f on every page to *hopefully* try and find the
part I'm looking for, and that's IF a seller has taken time to CORRECTLY
distinguish the variant, that's insane. What is honestly even the point of
this site existing if there isn't an easy way to search variants? You may
as well get rid of this site all together and force people to use the official
LEGO pick-a-brick system or ebay (which, considering the pick-a-brick option
is so much more expensive, is a terrible idea). Continuing this direction for
Bricklink will just make it obsolete all together. There's already an issue
with sellers incorrectly listing variants, you're just going to make this
so much worse. At the very least, you need to make it easy to search user entered
descriptions in the search bar. If this exists already, I can deal with this
change (I still won't be happy about it). If this doesn't exist, you're
slapping every collector in the face and making your own website obsolete. What
a terrible decision.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | MeisterDad | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | DISAGREE. |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Krekeltje62 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hi Russell
Does this mean you are going to remove existing lots and merge them into a new
one?
What will happen with the remark fields of the lots? They are now limited to
255 characters.
I do need that information to find the lots ....
I hope I find time to read the entire forum, maybe to find some answers, but
to be honest this is in general a bad idea and there is realy not enough time
for sellers to adapt.
Thank you if you find the time to anwser my concern.
greetings
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | JNoise | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As a buyer and seller, this is a really crappy idea.
This makes the catalog totally more confusing and if I have a set that has to
have a certain part in it but it is no longer listed, how are you supposed to
find it?!
don't do that!
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, JNoise writes:
| | As a buyer and seller, this is a really crappy idea.
This makes the catalog totally more confusing and if I have a set that has to
have a certain part in it but it is no longer listed, how are you supposed to
find it?!
don't do that!
|
It won't have to have a certain part variant in it any more!
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Biodreamer | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Terrible idea I have already hard to find the right mold as a buyer after this
it will be nearly impossible to find a store and those stores will most likely
hike the prices. There is already variants I care about that I can find because
Bricklink doesn't see them as different parts. Good that the data is for
most part retained by other sites such as rebrickable. but there is most likely
changes that are different between the sites inventories.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:46 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think so too.
For those of you who think this is a good idea, or just don’t care, PLEASE, please
watch this video…
……………All the way to the end please. (Analogies will be given near the end that
may change your mind.)
https://youtu.be/aGRxNX8Cg_o?si=6vFtxIXqXiQNxz_m
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 308 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | I think so too.
For those of you who think this is a good idea, or just don’t care, PLEASE, please
watch this video…
……………All the way to the end please. (Analogies will be given near the end that
may change your mind.)
https://youtu.be/aGRxNX8Cg_o?si=6vFtxIXqXiQNxz_m
|
I have watched that video and there are several corrections that need to be made.
First, the new date is Feb 15 for sellers to add notes.
Second, we are NOT merging the ungrooved tile:
which is found in this set:
In fact, we are not merging ANY tiles.
Third, regarding the Grill Tile, it is likely that later versions of that 1990
set did have the grooved tile, especially in the common color of red (see image
below). The BrickLink system is not complete in its representation of variants,
so it may give a false sense of correctness for vintage parts.
So for those of you wanting to complete old sets with the correct variants, please
be aware that this is not completely possible due to limitations of the data
that BrickLink has absorbed over the years, and also because many, many variants
are not distinguished.
Collectors usually have general timelines in their head that are often more useful
than BrickLink inventories for this purpose.
In general, I agree with the sentiment of this video, even if I have been correcting
some of the details. But BrickLink is NOT removing all variants from the catalog.
Variants are a critical aspect of BrickLink and we realize the importance they
bring.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Biodreamer | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 02:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
|
| | Collectors usually have general timelines in their head that are often more useful
than BrickLink inventories for this purpose.
|
and how do you think they got this timeline in the first place? from bricklink
catalog in many cases! yes the catalog isn't perfect but it's better
to have the natural one year mold overlap then saying they all are within the
overlap. some of the old mold are probably unnecessary rare due to the overlap
issue since everyone want the oldest combo due to the catalog. But I rather have
this issue then removing the history of mold even when it's slightly inaccurate.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | obsidianstar | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 08:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
I have watched that video and there are several corrections that need to be made.
|
Good morning. I believe that you are not understanding the core point of the
video, due to small inaccuracies in understanding parts that are being merged.
Perhaps reconsider the points provided as if the video had used the example of
smooth vs textured slopes? The core message of the video is independent of the
examples provided. I sincerely hope that you respond to the core sentiment, which
is that catalogue mergers damage fans ability to use bricklink as a resource
and and damage buyers ability to have confidence in period correct parts, rather
than the mistakes in the examples used to illustrate this point.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Collectors usually have general timelines in their head that are often more useful
than BrickLink inventories for this purpose.
In general, I agree with the sentiment of this video, even if I have been correcting
some of the details. But BrickLink is NOT removing all variants from the catalog.
Variants are a critical aspect of BrickLink and we realize the importance they
bring.
|
As a newer user of bricklink and a developing collector, I am slowly building
these general timelines from bricklink. It is the source from which I
am gaining this knowledge. I casually access bricklink to further my understanding
of the history of Lego, and this often leads to unexpected purchases! I hope
its clear that this choice degrades one of the core functions of bricklink. I
do understand that small catalog differences are difficult for sellers, but its
clear that this is a challenge that should be fixed somewhere other than the
database level. Honestly, a rework of the way bricklink handles variants is needed,
where sellers have the opportunity to not specify variants unless they choose
to. This allows for both sellers and buyers to get what they want.
Thank you for dealing with this community backlash! I understand it must be hard.
I sincerely hope that you are taking the strong emotions in play to heart, and
understanding that people value their ability to, for instance, buy textured
and non-textured slopes individually. It is clear that a large group of people
feel this way.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Sixracer | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Disappointing for collectors who want to reconstitute vintage sets with accurate
period correct parts. Putting the parts in a WishList will now yield a tedious
task of sorting through parts with the proper text remark to find the correct
variant.
This also generally waters down the distinction between period correct parts
and modern replacements within the broader Lego community. Meaning buying a vintage
set on Bricklink is more likely to come "contaminated" with modern parts
ruining the value and collectability.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Sixracer writes:
| | Disappointing for collectors who want to reconstitute vintage sets with accurate
period correct parts. Putting the parts in a WishList will now yield a tedious
task of sorting through parts with the proper text remark to find the correct
variant.
This also generally waters down the distinction between period correct parts
and modern replacements within the broader Lego community. Meaning buying a vintage
set on Bricklink is more likely to come "contaminated" with modern parts
ruining the value and collectability.
|
Totally agree! Eventually (say 8 years from now) people won’t even know about
these variants! And it will be impossible to part together/check if you have
all the right parts/ period appropriate parts!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| For those of you who think this is a good idea, or just don’t care, PLEASE, please
watch this video…
……………All the way to the end please. (Analogies will be given near the end that
may change your mind.)
https://youtu.be/aGRxNX8Cg_o?si=6vFtxIXqXiQNxz_m
The after effects may not be noticeable right away, but they will come.(video
gives examples)
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | alohasurf | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Please don't! Many already have the reasons. |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | jadebates | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As many others have said previously, this is not a good idea. This is erasing
LEGO's history and the hard work of many fans who have documented the history
of these different part variations throughout the years.
Not only is it erasing history, many buyers of vintage sets want period-accurate
variations of a piece, and some variations have differences that affect their
use, such as the underside differences of 2x2 round tiles, 1x2 jumpers, and 2x2x2
slopes, as well as grooved vs ungrooved tiles.
Myself and many others will be looking into alternative marketplaces (such as
Brickowl) if Bricklink goes through with this change, as it is completely unnecessary
and detrimental to the preservation of parts' history and to the user experience.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | montana_girl | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 16:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Like many others, I'm late on commenting and read through quite a few of
the comments.
I am on the "please, don't do this side."
My reasoning is the same as many others. I buy specific parts to recreate an
older sets, and so the variant is very important. I can't resell an older
set from the 90's with parts from the 2020's. Nor would I want to buy
a set like that.
As someone who primarily sells used parts, I know how important it is for the
buyer that they get the right variant for their project. And I am willing to
take the time to sort out the variants knowing that the buyer will appreciate
my efforts.
Do I agree the variants have gotten a bit out of control... yes... but does that
mean I want to merge them all to save time for sellers/buyers who don't care,
no!
As many as said, this sounds like it's already a done deal and will happen
regardless of what people want, but just know that many of us do care and don't
like this decision.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SnarkBricks | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| NO! Our store sorts parts by the minutest detail and variant. I cannot see this
transition as anything other than a total disaster for stores like ours - We'd
have hundreds of lots to manage! The seemingly better way to handle this is for
Admin to go into the catalog and make these merging parts obsolete...no longer
added to the catalog for sale. This will send each store a notification of EACH
part that is becoming obsolete in their ACTION ITEMS listing and allow them to
make the commentary notes on each item and schedule their changes at a reasonable
pace to "pre-merge" them before a system merges them for the store. Of
the simple list of obsolete variants you showed in the list, we'd be looking
at hundreds, if not more than 1000 parts needing attention. I agree the parts
may be redundant BUT for that builder who wants genuine age appropriate parts
in their build, this is not a great option. Please reconsider and allow the store
to manage for the transition rather than backward management of it.
Snark Bricks
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | NicksVintage | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I have long wondered why the wanted list and magic buy features don't include
some kind of auto-check to help buyers make sure they are ordering the mold that
they are looking for. For example, if a buyer is building a MOC that included
a part list with some errors, such as including 3068a (2x2 tile without groove)
when the common 3068b was intended, the user's wanted list could have some
pop-up that says "Are you sure you wanted this uncommon mold variant?"
And offer an option to switch to the common variant with a single click.
You could offer another feature during Magic Buy: run a background magic buy
with all the common variants fixed and show the buyer that they would save X
amount of dollars by switching to the common part variant.
Such a feature would help buyers out with category items that are not being proposed
for merging. One BIG example I have noticed in my store is that buyers are building
something that is obviously a MOC and not a vintage technic set, but they are
ordering the uncommon 4459 technic pin with Long Friction Ridges instead of the
common 2780 version of the pin. I know this isn't one of the items proposed
for merging (nor should it be because those vintage pins are MUCH stronger and
thicker) but If you built such a feature you would save Bricklink buyers money,
and save those pins from the 1980s and 90s for the buyers who are actually looking
for them. It would probably keep the price down on the vintage variants because
they would not be purchased by mistake, dwindling the supply.
I agree with the principle of this proposed merge but, as a seller who has spent
a lot of time and money getting these variants right, I disagree with the heavy-handed
way it is being implemented. I think the merge is not solving this bigger issue
that would give buyers a lot more satisfaction on your site.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DDSEnt | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I strongly disagree with this change. You are chipping away at what makes BrickLink
the premier site it has been for Lego Collector's worldwide. I'm so sorry
Daniel .
My store always abides by all mold variations in my listings. This is one of
my strengths as a seller, and has taken a significant investment in time over
the years. I can't help but resent that at a click of a button you will erase
my efforts and investment in OOP part mold variations just to make your job easier,
when there are other solutions that would just take a few more lines of code.
You appear to be putting the burden on the sellers/buyers to make sure the buyer
gets the right part for their needs messaging back and forth.
The bigger problem for the community at large is buying original parts for used
OOP kits, or when purchasing a used kit making sure all the parts are 100%
authentic. I would imagine there are buyers who shop for used kits exclusively
on BrickLink to insure the inventory of these sets match BrickLink's accurate
original inventory. The work around for this issue appears to make things harder
not easier. Like most things humans do to make things better when no action is
required it makes things worse. Sometimes doing nothing is the best solution.
Maybe this is one of those times.
Thank you for your consideration, but I have been around long enough to know
this train has left the station.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DDSEnt writes:
| | I strongly disagree with this change. You are chipping away at what makes BrickLink
the premier site it has been for Lego Collector's worldwide. I'm so sorry
Daniel .
My store always abides by all mold variations in my listings. This is one of
my strengths as a seller, and has taken a significant investment in time over
the years. I can't help but resent that at a click of a button you will erase
my efforts and investment in OOP part mold variations just to make your job easier,
when there are other solutions that would just take a few more lines of code.
You appear to be putting the burden on the sellers/buyers to make sure the buyer
gets the right part for their needs messaging back and forth.
The bigger problem for the community at large is buying original parts for used
OOP kits, or when purchasing a used kit making sure all the parts are 100%
authentic. I would imagine there are buyers who shop for used kits exclusively
on BrickLink to insure the inventory of these sets match BrickLink's accurate
original inventory. The work around for this issue appears to make things harder
not easier. Like most things humans do to make things better when no action is
required it makes things worse. Sometimes doing nothing is the best solution.
Maybe this is one of those times.
Thank you for your consideration, but I have been around long enough to know
this train has left the station.
|
I agree with you, I do the same thing for my store too. Sellers should be obligated
to make sure that the variant that they are selling is the right one.
https://youtu.be/aGRxNX8Cg_o?si=7FyEwweZ1xmmDq-e
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
Please this isn't a place to push a Youtube channel.
I'd suggest if you've something to say to say it here?
Thank you.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | DDSEnt | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thank you for your feedback, but I am suspicious that the only reason your agreeing
with me is our avatars are wearing the same cap.
Living in the Oregon woods,
Steve
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DDSEnt writes:
| | Thank you for your feedback, but I am suspicious that the only reason your agreeing
with me is our avatars are wearing the same cap.
Living in the Oregon woods,
Steve
|
maybe I just like the hat. You got a good taste in style.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | DDSEnt | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Also... thank you for the u-tube video link. It was informative and addressing
what some of us feel is an important issue. Communication is always good, and
I for one is skeptical of the underlining reason for this update?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | FarmerGadda | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
This is the opposite direction this website should go- as a database for the
historical record of lego's past, it should be MORE granular, not less. I
was under the impression that Bricklink's records were the most reliable
available on the internet, but changes like this will quickly ruin that. I'd
rather use another service that at the very least properly lists mold differences
as unique entries than risk wasting money on lego that is improperly sorted.
And relying solely on the notes system will make the Quick buy button even less
useful than it already is. An improperly labeled piece in an otherwise fine purchase
will lead me to never shopping in the same place twice; and I won't even
be able to fully be upset at the individual seller in this case.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DarthMaul1 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
this a really dumb change not all parts were the same back then and the color
was different than modern Lego and parts back then are really different doing
this will make selling old Lego impossible with not everyone wanting to add a
description to every single item!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Nimitstexan | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:46 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please do not do this. Some of the variants (say, the number of teeth on a hinge)
are significantly important to the design of certain builds. Not being able to
differentiate between them is going to lead to many unhappy users.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nimitstexan writes:
| | Please do not do this. Some of the variants (say, the number of teeth on a hinge)
are significantly important to the design of certain builds. Not being able to
differentiate between them is going to lead to many unhappy users.
|
The angles are the same.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | thegrublord02 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is going to set a bad precedent when regarding period-appropriate parts
in vintage sets, especially in a non-marketplace application, when piecing together
a set it's important to know which mold variant was being used at the time
of the sets release. I hope the team will reconsider this change, as it's
going to erase a lot of important information.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Nimitstexan | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please do not do this. Some of the variants (say, the number of teeth on a hinge)
are significantly important to the design of certain builds. Not being able to
differentiate between them is going to lead to many unhappy users.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Brickskier | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As a seller and a buyer, this is a very strange change. Many of these consolidated
versions have different prices, and the availability and desirability of certain
versions of a part are quite different.
How will buyers be able to tell what version of the part a seller carries without
messaging them or without the seller mentioning it in their description? If I
want to buy, for example, a Reddish Brown 2x2x3 slope with a smooth face(which
appears only in the 2006 MTT), am I to message each seller who has the part listed
and ask if their version of the part is the correct one? Will the listings for
these items be marked for deletion or automatically consolidated? Will the new
one-size-fits all catalog entries have images of all existing consolidated versions?
These are just a few of my questions/concerns regarding this change. I can't
help but feel that this change unnecessarily simplifies things and makes the
experience for both sellers and buyers considerably worse. I suppose it might
not be too big of a deal once the change is actually pushed through, but only
time will tell.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | hug_a_brick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 17:57 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Bricklink is a community, not a platform.
Since Bricklink is a platform, you really think this and other dumb things are
a good idea.
If Bricklink were a community, you would understand how Lego works, how people
think, how people collect and how people play with Lego.
The worst ideia since the platform Lego bought this Bricklink community.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | treeman838 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| PROCEED WITH CAUTION. I understand that some variants are interchangeable but
there are MANY that are not. Vintage pieces need to remain separate. If I want
a 3794a without bottom groove, then that's what I expect to get. Several
stores already merge these on BrickOwl and its terrible.
As a buyer, I don't want to ask about variants from every store I'm interested
in. As a seller, I don't want to make a notation for all the parts in my
inventory.
I see the benefit of merging parts but, if not done correctly, it will be a disaster.
Overall I'm not in favor of the decision.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Nostrix | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is a terrible idea. Many parts have significant aesthetic, functional, and
price differences for minor differences in mouldings. This will end up with buyers
potentially ending up with the wrong parts, and sellers being able to sell the
wrong parts with the wrong price.
often moulding differences have only been made recently, so parts with the old
moulding/fuctionality are not as good quality due to their age. any kind of plate
with groove, for example, is distincly different from a plate without a groove
and is significantly newer.
I can see this ending up with a lot of disappointed buyers and a lot of extra
admin and refunding/re-shipping for sellers.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyipp | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | What a bad idea, this is certainly detrimental to anyone working on vintage sets. |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | MrBer | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:11 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As a database engineer and a frequent user of bricklink ... thank you.
Database design is a balance, recording unimportant details can bog down a database,
really undermining its practical usage. These changes seem fair to me, I will
appreciate them when building wishlists, and it will help sellers a great deal
too, which is great they do a hard job.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:05 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, MrBer writes:
| | As a database engineer and a frequent user of bricklink ... thank you.
Database design is a balance, recording unimportant details can bog down a database,
really undermining its practical usage. These changes seem fair to me, I will
appreciate them when building wishlists, and it will help sellers a great deal
too, which is great they do a hard job.
|
Then, as a database engineer, you should also know that you don't just throw
away data that carries important information with it. What you do is design an
appropriate front-end UX that exploits that data for each user as they see fit
to use it.
By the way, this same concept goes for _all_ variants in the BrickLink catalog,
not just a subset of them that are deemed "unimportant" for the masses
by a small group of people.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Rarah | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
Yes please! Much appreciated as many of the variants would only cause headache
and no function or visual difference in any of those.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Ayden | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
Bricklink’s worst update I’ve ever seen. Completely removes the point of Bricklink
being a Lego Database.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | stevetq2 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That argument is a bit like saying to a library don't worry that a particular
titled book is a 1st edition, as long as you have the Author and Title, that's
fine.
In Catalog, Ayden writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
Bricklink’s worst update I’ve ever seen. Completely removes the point of Bricklink
being a Lego Database.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Bricklink’s worst update I’ve ever seen. Completely removes the point of Bricklink
being a Lego Database.
|
BrickLink is a marketplace - exactly just like Dan created it.
It's not a LEGO database.
Even if its Catalog has become the absolutely best, worldwide.
But thank you for your opinion, as... a zero feedback user registered for 2+
years.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | stevetq2 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| BIG RESPONSE SINCE EMAIL WENT OUT AGAINST THIS CHANGE
BrickLink is a DATABASE, there are different entries for GOOD reason, what we
are being asked to do is create our OWN entries by writing text in a description.
Also what about those parts 'like' minifigure heads that have a big
difference in value between a 'hollow' stud and a 'blocked open'
stud version (e.g. Star Wars heads), that will be lost and some sellers will
be out of pocket.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:44 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| We are also being discouraged from adding variation notes.
I fear a slippery slope here, how many more are to come ?
These changes will have a minor effect on what I have and I see the reasoning
behind some but not all.
Once this change happens we could see many more parts suggested by those interested
in simplifying the catalogue.
In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:
| | BIG RESPONSE SINCE EMAIL WENT OUT AGAINST THIS CHANGE
BrickLink is a DATABASE, there are different entries for GOOD reason, what we
are being asked to do is create our OWN entries by writing text in a description.
Also what about those parts 'like' minifigure heads that have a big
difference in value between a 'hollow' stud and a 'blocked open'
stud version (e.g. Star Wars heads), that will be lost and some sellers will
be out of pocket.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink is a marketplace.
https://www.bricklink.com/v3/terms_of_service.page
Paragraph 3.
The Site acts as an online platform for Sellers to sell LEGO® items and designs
for a model or creation using bricks (“My Own Creation” or “MOC”) and for Buyers
to buy Sellers' items and MOCs.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:54 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| |
BrickLink is a marketplace.
https://www.bricklink.com/v3/terms_of_service.page
Paragraph 3.
The Site acts as an online platform for Sellers to sell LEGO® items and designs
for a model or creation using bricks (“My Own Creation” or “MOC”) and for Buyers
to buy Sellers' items and MOCs.
|
BrickLink is many things: a community, corporation, website, discussion forum,
marketplace, database, codebase, daycare, psychiatric hospital, chicken coop,
culinary art school, battlefield… The list goes on and on.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | stevetq2 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 18:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is a retrograde step, as well as degrading the BrickLink Database it will
cause disappointment for buyers looking for specific mould types particularly
for vintage sets, make MORE work NOT LESS for sellers and buyers sorting all
of this out with refunds etc AND reduce the value of certain parts (mostly mini-figures
with specific stud types) and loss of information as to EXACTLY what made up
certain sets.
PLEASE BRICKLINK DO NOT DO THIS - IT IS NOT NECESSARY
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | stevetq2 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Where there are TWO entries for mini-figures with a different stud head will
be used as there is 1) sometimes a big difference in price between the two variants
and 2) will the number of items of the 2 variants be combined and if so what
average price will be used?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:11 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:
| | Where there are TWO entries for mini-figures with a different stud head will
be used as there is 1) sometimes a big difference in price between the two variants
and 2) will the number of items of the 2 variants be combined and if so what
average price will be used?
|
to the best of my knowledge bricklink never had separate entries for the same
figure with a different stud head. just a note in the inventories stating something
like "found with both a and b styles heads" or "early copies of this
figure would have solid stud heads"
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:14 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:
| | Where there are TWO entries for mini-figures with a different stud head will
be used as there is 1) sometimes a big difference in price between the two variants
and 2) will the number of items of the 2 variants be combined and if so what
average price will be used?
|
Are there any?
If the only difference is a stud type, then I thought only one entry was allowed
and the stud type variant added as a note to the first added one which is treated
as the 'correct' inventory.
For example
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | jerkbegjohn | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | this is bad for bricklink. please dont shoot self in foot, bricklink. |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Timko | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| What the heck. Please no. Its important for Vintage Sets! Buyers will be mad
if they get a 2022 space torso instead of one out of the 80s. Bricklink getting
worse and worse since Lego take the lead. No one like to sort parts wich just
got one little different, but if a part got two (or more) version, than this
part got two versions. Done.
By the way, maybe better split some colors, like the stupid dark red. There are
2 versions, but Bricklink say its only one. Thats no fun for Buyers and Sellers.
Greetings
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Toypop | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
|
Terrible idea, please BL do not implement this change. It matters to a lot of
people to get the specific time period part, and also matters this website is
the best resource for history of lego sets. This is going to create an issue
that will require people to visit other sites to get the info they want.
Also, what happens if I have listed variants in my store, that went in seperate
drawers. Will they merge into one and I'll have no idea where the deleted
entry went?
| | I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | marshallx | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:44 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please no. From the list of proposed changes, inside supports, connections between
studs, frosted lines, smooth/textured slopes and grooves are all very important
to me. The rest I don't mind personally. I agree with others that a variant
field would be a far better solution.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | teric2 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 20:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I spend many hours a day referencing Brinklink inventory to validate LEGO sets,
especially vintage LEGO sets. I am curious if there is a way to save a copy of
the current file, before the switch, for future reference? I understand that
we would no longer be able to click on links or search but at least that information
would not be lost and could still be available. This information is only available
on Bricklink, is used by so many and has taken years and thousands of hours to
complete and it would be horrible to lose this resource and historical information.
I understand that it may not be perfect and no longer be able to updated, but
at least it would not be lost. I am begging you to find a way to not lose all
of this historical information that many, many LEGO fans use daily.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 20:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I know it isnt much but
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447669
I archived some of the data. I strongly suggest others do the same for any/all
data they/others may want in the future
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Chris_138 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 20:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| hello,
I'm with you. +++
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | thebrickmonster | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As a collector, this will complete destroy the usability of the site. Re-think
this change because I will boycott.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WilliamS | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is a terrible idea. Many of these differences are functional differences,
which affect the use of the part in particular techniques. Merging them will
make it harder for sellers to identify the distinct variants, especially sellers
joining the system after the merge. If this goes through I will take my business
elsewhere.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Janettoe | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I agree with a lot of the comments - I don't like variants but for the authenticity
of the set they are often needed. That said, however, most sets have alternate
items, which are just variants. I personally hate having to count the grooves
on the hinges with teeth. "Did my hand slip and I missed a groove?" start
the count again... ARGH. Even if you don't go ahead with all the changes,
please do that one! And, actually I don't like the orientation variants (X
vs. +) I am a small seller, but would take the time to get the correct variant
if a buyer asked for a specific one.
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| the trick with the teeth is to not count the teeth but just look for the large
gap between them on the 1 version
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 23:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | the trick with the teeth is to not count the teeth but just look for the large
gap between them on the 1 version
|
Correct. You can see the missing teeth on the large picture for [p=53029].
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 04:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| You don’t have to count the grooves, there are two voids on the 7 teeth versions,
easily distinguished even with my eyesight.
In Catalog, Janettoe writes:
| | I agree with a lot of the comments - I don't like variants but for the authenticity
of the set they are often needed. That said, however, most sets have alternate
items, which are just variants. I personally hate having to count the grooves
on the hinges with teeth. "Did my hand slip and I missed a groove?" start
the count again... ARGH. Even if you don't go ahead with all the changes,
please do that one! And, actually I don't like the orientation variants (X
vs. +) I am a small seller, but would take the time to get the correct variant
if a buyer asked for a specific one.
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Damon20 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| BrickLink,
This is a HORRIBLE idea which will make it near impossible to locate (and sell)
period-accurate pieces. One example would be bricks with inside support and without.
Please reconsider.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 03:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Damon20 writes:
| | BrickLink,
This is a HORRIBLE idea which will make it near impossible to locate (and sell)
period-accurate pieces. One example would be bricks with inside support and without.
Please reconsider.
|
An excellent example of where most people don't care.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Wookie305 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I highly disagree with this procedure. These are significant enough differences
to need listing. There is already plenty of quality concerns without finding
a bag full of parts that are completely unable to use due to not having certain
aspects no longer differentiated.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | isaacmflorez101 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 22:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I strongly disagree with this! Please don't let it happen 🤞
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | kidcastle1215 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 22:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I do understand that variants can get out of control, but I want to have the
ability to list exactly what I have so (a) buyers who care get what they want
and (b) I charge reasonable prices for my parts (especially used). Now, you say
I can still do that by adding notes, but here's the thing: I rely on the
catalog to know whether or not there are any variants to consider. Take 4623
- I would have never known there was a 5mm and 6mm to differentiate if it weren't
noted in the catalog, so the "put it in the notes" direction does not
help or make sense to me.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Tusserte | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 22:37 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As a buyer, I do not think this is a good change. Most of these variants have
significant functional or visual differences so I want to know which one I should
be getting. It seems reasonable to allow people to opt out of this in their buying
and selling settings the way the "undetermined type" exists. If you introduced
"undetermined types" to sets and minifigures wouldn't that suffice
to make the experience easier for sellers?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | RedSun | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 22:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is a TERRIBLE idea, and will only make for MORE work for the seller and
buyer when specific variants are needed.
Additionally, Bricklink is also used for historical reference. Simplifying the
database will result in lost history that is important to many Lego fans.
As mentioned previously, simply change the front end and allow users to toggle
on and off a setting to merge pieces if they don't care what variant they
receive.
This is a major dumbing down of the system!
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Tazz | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 23:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Question please - will everyones stock be automatically be moved when the merge
happens?
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tigger77 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 23:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'll join the chorus and say this is a horrible idea. As others have suggested,
simply add a dropdown the same way you currently have for color. The default
when you go to a piece is no color. Similarly you can have the default variant
type be "undetermined". Then users can select the variant they want from
a dropdown when adding to wanted lists, or simply leave it blank if they don't
care, and the page will show all variants as equal. This is important history
that cannot be found on other sites. This information was provided to Bricklink
free of charge, over decades of hard work by AFOLs. You are now deciding that
they should no longer have access to that information, and are essentially wiping
away their hard work, and a portion of Lego's history. Bad taste. Do not
make this change.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | BranTheBuilder | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 00:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Re: For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted
list, find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
As a buyer i strongly disagree with this change, having each variant clearly
stated makes it incredibly easy to find which one comes from which set/ year,
for someone who wants to attain a specific variant in high quantities or just
in general buy a specific part from a specif set, pooling all the variants together
in turn prevents specific selection making it infuriating for both the buyer
and seller. To me this is like saying Dark Grey and Dark Bluish Grey are the
same piece (THEY ARE NOT) i would much prefer as a buyer select the exact type
im looking for meaning i have to spend maybe an extra 5 minutes than get a variant
i might not have been looking for then having to either suck it up and use something
i didnt want or go through the painstaking process of having to refund and return
the parts, which takes a hell of alot longer than 5 minutes
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 23:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I'll once again say, thanks for the change!
I'd still like to see actual zone-based auto checkout for the USA. Any ideas
on when that will be implemented?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | sirhcx | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 23:46 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think this has good intentions but boils down to finding a solution for a problem
that doesnt really exist. If sellers are going to need to put in some extra
leg work to sort their pieces then the prices should be adjusted accordingly.
I think that this will greatly impact vintage parts and make it impossible for
the near worry free consistency that buyers already have right now.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BrianDan | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 23:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
Please, god no. I hate this. I've used the granularity multiple times to
make sure I was getting the correct replacement variant for classic and older
sets. Having a modern part in an old set really looks bad, and in a lot of cases
will stick out quite a lot. From a collectors standpoint this would also completely
ruin the value.
There are also quite a few that would be consolidated that have different functionality.
If I needed one of those, 2x2 brick with click hinge for example, I can't
guarantee that I would get the correct one that has the axle hole in it or not.
If the set I'm buying it for needs the axle to go through it to complete
the model and I get the wrong one because no one is actually sorting that difference
any more I'm completely screwed.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 00:06 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 00:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Mhm the example in the video was completely separate from this (unless it was
from the pov from a potential future change that this in theory could lead towards
as once this likely happens the chances of it happening again with even more
parts is much more likely and people only can imagine what parts would then be
combined)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:11 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | It's like saying every Honda Civic is the same cuz they're all under
the Honda Civic name; ignore the functional differences, year & visual appearance...
a Civic is a Civic!
|
Exactly.
Normal people would need a Used car that fits their budget; not a very specific
Honda Civic.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | It's like saying every Honda Civic is the same cuz they're all under
the Honda Civic name; ignore the functional differences, year & visual appearance...
a Civic is a Civic!
|
Exactly.
Normal people would need a Used car that fits their budget; not a very specific
Honda Civic.
|
Good thing Lego is a lot cheaper than a Civic so we can afford to get that specific
piece we actually want!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | civics! they are everywhere... |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 04:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | I think the lack of response to the backlash shows exactly how much Bricklink
values its userbase (very highly, in fact they are so ashamed that they can't
even come up with a response... maybe we owe them an apology?)
|
Tomorrow I'll address the YouTube videos that seem to be contributing to
this thread.
|
That slugger video, he obviously hasn't looked into what is changing before
posting a public knee jerk reaction. Pure clickbait. I wonder how much these
big youtubers actually use lego, as opposed to making money rom clicks. Looking
at the comments, it seems he didn't know the angles of the 7 and 9 tooth
hinges are the same. And there are comments saying that the different jumpers
have different functionalities because they have different undersides and shouldn't
be merged, when they aren't being merged.
It wasn't clear what was changing when this thread was first posted. But
due to discussion and replies here it has become more clear. Unfortunately I
doubt the clickbait youtubers will post a response if they take some time to
understand what is happening.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | I think the lack of response to the backlash shows exactly how much Bricklink
values its userbase (very highly, in fact they are so ashamed that they can't
even come up with a response... maybe we owe them an apology?)
|
Tomorrow I'll address the YouTube videos that seem to be contributing to
this thread.
|
That slugger video, he obviously hasn't looked into what is changing before
posting a public knee jerk reaction. Pure clickbait. I wonder how much these
big youtubers actually use lego, as opposed to making money rom clicks. Looking
at the comments, it seems he didn't know the angles of the 7 and 9 tooth
hinges are the same. And there are comments saying that the different jumpers
have different functionalities because they have different undersides and shouldn't
be merged, when they aren't being merged.
It wasn't clear what was changing when this thread was first posted. But
due to discussion and replies here it has become more clear. Unfortunately I
doubt the clickbait youtubers will post a response if they take some time to
understand what is happening.
|
You have no idea what you are talking about. In the video sugger SAID the video
was not monetized(proof: no ads, other than automatic ones that YouTube forces
on videos) so he can’t make ANY money!
Also if you had watched one or more videos you would know that he spends hours
doing research, all the sets he talks about he owns. He has spent a lot of time
with lego.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Is the video accurate or not?
Admin Russell doesn't seem to think so:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450164
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450247
In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| |
You have no idea what you are talking about. In the video sugger SAID the video
was not monetized(proof: no ads, other than automatic ones that YouTube forces
on videos) so he can’t make ANY money!
Also if you had watched one or more videos you would know that he spends hours
doing research, all the sets he talks about he owns. He has spent a lot of time
with lego.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | Also if you had watched one or more videos you would know that he spends hours
doing research, all the sets he talks about he owns. He has spent a lot of time
with lego.
|
|
That slugger one doesn't even know the angles of the 7 vs 9 teeth hinges
are the same. I imagine he is more interested in the money received through clicks
than what he is talking about.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:44 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | Also if you had watched one or more videos you would know that he spends hours
doing research, all the sets he talks about he owns. He has spent a lot of time
with lego.
|
|
That slugger one doesn't even know the angles of the 7 vs 9 teeth hinges
are the same. I imagine he is more interested in the money received through clicks
than what he is talking about.
|
That's a really nasty accusation that doesn't pass the smell test. The
guy doesn't get a ton of clicks and it's obviously a labor of love for
him. He covers relatively obscure themes and small part details.
I agree that he, like many others, doesn't seem to have realized that the
7 and 9 tooth hinges both provide the same number of articulation angles. And
like many others he also seems to have misunderstood the groove/no-groove change
with tiles: the two kinds of tiles will NOT be merged; the phrase "with groove"
will simply be removed from the name/label for the grooved tiles.
But he's right about most of the other planned changes/merges: merging vintage
and reissue printed torses (prong/no-prong) is ridiculous; and merging tube/no-tube
trans-clear bricks and smooth/textured slopes is incredibly dumb. For the torsos
it's because vintage vs reissue make a huge difference for collectors (and
they command different prices on BL as a result); and for the clear bricks and
the slopes it's because people who order them want a certain appearance and
they want them all to look the same.
Merging Duplo tube/no-tube seems harmless to me, given that the varaition is
not (as far as I know) important to adult collectors and is invisible as well
when you build with those parts.
So some of the merges make sense - but some are just dreadful whether you look
at it from the perspective of buyers, sellers, collectors, or the catalogue as
an official historical database.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 10:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | So some of the merges make sense - but some are just dreadful whether you look
at it from the perspective of buyers, sellers, collectors, or the catalogue as
an official historical database.
|
The catalogue is not an official historical database. Where does it say it is?
It is a database that helps sellers sell and buyers buy. It is also a database
that is owned by Bricklink, which in turn is owned by LEGO, and has date information
in it. But they don't claim the dates are correct or indeed that any of the
inventories are correct. In fact there is a disclaimer on every inventory saying
that they do not guarantee it is correct.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | obsidianstar | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | I think the lack of response to the backlash shows exactly how much Bricklink
values its userbase (very highly, in fact they are so ashamed that they can't
even come up with a response... maybe we owe them an apology?)
|
Tomorrow I'll address the YouTube videos that seem to be contributing to
this thread.
For now, I'll just mention that most of what is being objected to isn't
part of the project. If you're looking to have influence in this discussion,
please take the time to learn what is actually being proposed.
|
Good morning! I would urge you to not focus on the mistake made in the youtube
videos responding to these changes, and instead attempt to understand the reasoning
behind the response this issue is getting. For example, I did an entirely unscientific
read-through of the comments of the youtube video, and I found that less than
10 of the 446 comments referenced the mistaken grooved parts. That's less
than 3%! The parts I found referenced in the comments most often were the textured
vs non-textured slopes. It is clear that many people are quite upset about this
change, as it is a visual difference that is on the visible face of mocs. I myself
will find it frustrating to deal with in the future, especially as I build mocs
to blend into older themes seamlessly. Additionally, I would consider it unacceptable
to buy a vintage set and find untextured slopes mixed in with textured slopes.
I find myself very worried that the upcoming announcement will almost exclusively
address the errors in the youtube videos about the topic, and ignore or downplay
the very real feelings of the community about the actual changes taking place.
Many members of the community feel that they are simply not being heard, or worse,
looked down on. I would strongly urge you to respond to the core of the issue
being discussed here, not the surface level mistakes made by a failure to understand
the announcement. Thank you for your time.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 11:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | I think the lack of response to the backlash shows exactly how much Bricklink
values its userbase (very highly, in fact they are so ashamed that they can't
even come up with a response... maybe we owe them an apology?)
|
Tomorrow I'll address the YouTube videos that seem to be contributing to
this thread.
|
They may be, but finally sending a communication email out to the entire userbase
with a link to this forum thread sure helped.
| | For now, I'll just mention that most of what is being objected to isn't
part of the project. If you're looking to have influence in this discussion,
please take the time to learn what is actually being proposed.
|
I hope you are not ignoring many of the responses that clearly do understand
what is happening and have also expressed the proper way to solve the issue.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 12:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | I think the lack of response to the backlash shows exactly how much Bricklink
values its userbase (very highly, in fact they are so ashamed that they can't
even come up with a response... maybe we owe them an apology?)
|
Tomorrow I'll address the YouTube videos that seem to be contributing to
this thread.
|
They may be, but finally sending a communication email out to the entire userbase
with a link to this forum thread sure helped.
| | For now, I'll just mention that most of what is being objected to isn't
part of the project. If you're looking to have influence in this discussion,
please take the time to learn what is actually being proposed.
|
I hope you are not ignoring many of the responses that clearly do understand
what is happening and have also expressed the proper way to solve the issue.
|
You are right we know what is going to happen and it is for the worst.
The worst part is that we have no say, and are being largely ignored.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:05 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | | | If you're looking to have influence in this discussion, please take the time to learn what is actually being proposed.
|
Even if I studied the discussion front-to-back for 10,000 hours and became an
expert on the topic, we both know that the userbase's input has zero influence
& this will be going through regardless
Sorry to be a prick, but the fact that people have been voicing their displeasure
with this change for 2 weeks now & nothing has been changed or reconsidered says
a lot about how much "influence" we actually have; it's crazy how
a YouTube video uploaded ~20 hours ago (as of this post) was able to get more
acknowledgement than the people protesting this since the change was announced
Lumping multiple part variants together is dumbing down the catalog, and will
lead to far more complaints than there were before this change was implemented;
I don't want to have to gamble on the variant I'm buying because the
seller didn't clarify in the item notes (as a lot of sellers don't put
any comments whatsoever) and then be out the money because they have no responsibility
to provide a specific variant anymore - and god forbid I try to send a message
asking, as a lot of sellers don't reply to their messages either
It creates more work for no reason, the way the catalog is right now is perfectly
fine; if anything, there should be 1 "master" page for each part &
the sellers could select which variant it is while listing the part, similar
to selecting New/Used, Complete/Incomplete, Sealed, etc. and then have the variant
automatically put into the listing comments so people know what it is
Lumping everything together is a headache for everyone but lazy sellers; in the
end, it's really not that hard to take a look at the item picture and figure
out what part you have - we've all been doing it for years at this point,
why change it now?
|
This is such a concise explanation of the problem with this whole endeavor of
Bricklink's, thanks so much for posting this, will definitely be checking
out your store.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:13 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | | | This is such a concise explanation of the problem with this whole endeavor of Bricklink's, thanks so much for posting this, will definitely be checking out your store.
|
lol, I have a whole lot of nothing listed right now; feel free to buy it all
- I'll even throw in free shipping
|
Lol thanks didn't see that until after my message--I'll take free
shipping any day of the week though, A+ store LOL
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Thanks for taking our input into consideration before implementing the changes,
so glad to see it's overwhelmingly positive and everyone's comments had
an impact on the changes being made - as part of the platform, I'm happy
our voices are heard!
|
Problem is: people collecting and rebuilding are a minority, I'd say 1/100
or 1/1000 of the whole buyers buying bricks to play, build a recent MOC or a
Set, or for their LEGO worksop.
But this minority is ultra vocal in forum, some being in Forum permanently or
coming often.
The others never or almost never come in Forum, a majority don't know it
even exists.
So the opinion we hear here is very biased, sorry to say.
Note also, I'm not sure how it'll work but collectors/rebuilders will
still be able to get the specific parts - if the sellers list them (and correctly),
of course. But this doesn't change of the current situation where half of
the 3068a are either rip offs or errors
IMHO.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | clrv4000 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 00:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I am quite displeased with this change. I already have enough trouble ordering
the correct variants for completing sets accurately, as many sellers are too
lazy to separate variants. (Like every one of you who doesn't check for
broken ball-joint sockets on used Bionicle parts before entering them into your
inventory - it's incredibly frustrating that I keep receiving so many broken
parts over and over. It's literally the majority of the parts I receive.)
Some of these changes matter a lot when trying to complete vintage sets correctly.
I've also found axle clutch differences, sometimes significantly, between
hole profile variants. Even just considering appearance, I recently needed a
number of 1x2 technic bricks with '+' axle hole. There are three different
versions of the mold, and I needed them to actually look the same in ten repetitious
positions on a detailed model. The function was visual, not physical. Thankfully
I already had enough that matched, as I could have ordered them over and over
again and never ended up with all of them matching.
Another example of something that needs to be distinguished, but most sellers
are often not even aware of it, is between parts 15672 and 92946. When they
are used side by side, it definitely matters which one is used so they all line
up right. I've nearly given up trying to order the right variants for set
completion, as I now have a ton of the wrong ones I have little use for. I tire
of having to ask sellers ahead of time about this so often, and then still have
to go through the headache of explaining the difference nearly every time.
Now that the onus is on the sellers to fill in extended descriptions for so
many variants, you can be sure that most will not bother. This ruins the usefulness
and reputation of this marketplace and reference database, and it sets a bad
precedent that will surely result in more unsolicited/unwanted regressions.
There needs to be a clear indicator provided in store name headers that shows
whether a seller actually makes the effort to separate variants. I shouldn't
have to open a store and read through their terms in hopes of finding whether
or not they even mention it. Simply put, if buyers want a simplified buying/browsing
experience, give them a checkbox option to ignore/merge variants. Instead, you've
forced everyone to have the same dumbed-down experience. Would it have been
so hard to offer a 'Basic' and 'Advanced' version of the website
UI?
If sellers prefer a simplified experience, perhaps they are in the wrong place.
Why not just go sell bulk lots on eBay rather than cluttering up the listings
here. I understand that it takes an enormous effort and commitment to run a
Bricklink store, but surely you all knew what you were signing up for if you
were here in the first place, right?
I use Bricklink as my primary reference and buying source because of its history
as a detail oriented and community-friendly entity, and for it's extensive
completeness of historical reference material. If you're going to break
this experience, I honestly don't know how much longer I can stick around.
The question remains, who actually asked for this? I most certainly didn't.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 00:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
While we're all here and fired up about part variants... I'll take this
time to point out that the inventory for set includes a part variant
in a color that has never ever existed for that part. I'll give you a hint,
it's the one without a catalog picture
If we're so concerned about Bricklink being a historical database, can we
FINALLY fix this glaring issue?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mrg8472 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 01:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please, don't do this!
Sellers won't make distinctions for these items, it is profitable to be lazy
about this.
Also, how should they know that there are different versions for that brick.
It would make much harder to complete a set with time period correct bricks.
And finally this would make a bad precedence for the future... Instead of this
just focus on improving the set inventories, there are still a lot of sets which
are incomplete (missing stickered/assembled bricks).
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | giedriu5 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 01:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I don't like it . This will make it harder to check set inventory.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | porschecm2 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 01:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This would be a very bad idea. I would love to see many updates to the catalog,
but merging existing variants is not one of them. You say these "don't
seem to be that important" but that many other variants are staying. Who
made that determination? Because most variants don't matter most of the time--until
they do matter. A secondary market site like Bricklink should recognize as many
variations as possible, even when LEGO itself doesn't make a distinction
(and, I'd argue, especially because they do not!).
Some of these variants are very important indeed, like the minifigure torsos,
click hinges, or axle holes, which are historically or functionally distinct.
This seems like the worst possible solution to the problem of a complicated catalog.
I'm sure the more obvious solutions such as creating and linking a variant-neutral
entry in addition to the existing variants would be challenging and bring its
own issues, but losing *decades* of valuable history and the ability to selectively
buy older elements is not the correct solution.
(And yes, I'm aware that sellers can still add notes. That's an awful
solution and everyone knows it. Just to begin with, once you've merged the
catalog entries and the old entries have been deleted, how will anyone even know
to sort the variants, let alone to search for them? And then there's the
whole problem)
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | benelson | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 02:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Though I have an active seller account, I was unaware of this impending change
until Bricklink actually emailed members, two weeks after this forum posting.
(I nearly typed “proposed” change, but that’s not accurate. The forum post and
email are clearly informing members about a change that has already been decided,
rather than offering a proposal and requesting feedback before decisions are
finalized.)
Even though the tone of the initial outreach from Bricklink doesn’t really feel
welcoming to user input, I’ll offer a couple thoughts. First, as a seller, I
don’t do bulk sales of parts, and my sales are extremely low volume. So these
changes won’t materially affect me. But I can imagine that sellers who’ve invested
time & effort into maintaining these inventory distinctions might be very upset.
Not only have they already been doing more work to offer buyers the highest possible
level of specificity, but they’re now also shouldering the burden of having to
add variant descriptions to their inventories. That seems doubly unfair. Or triply
unfair, if there’s also a significant difference in the sale value of different
variants.
As a buyer, I can imagine that these merges would make navigating Bricklink extremely
cumbersome for anyone interested in mold variations. In particular, constructing
multi-shop orders using wanted lists would become virtually impossible if you
cared about mold variants. Rather than adding a particular variant to their wanted
list, a buyer would have to create carts, then check each cart for part descriptions
(which are visible in created carts, but not during the cart creation process).
And then, would potentially also have to communicate individually with each shop
to confirm whether parts without specific descriptions could be available in
variants. If any step in that chain didn’t work, the buyer would have to start
shopping from scratch. It would be essentially impossible for a collector trying
to assemble, say, a 1980s Classic Space set using a minifigure torso that has
short interior prongs and tiles without bottom grooves to use the function of
shopping with wanted lists. That website function would be basically broken for
that user.
I also don’t entirely buy the argument that all of these variants are unnecessarily
burdensome to sellers. To me, it’s much, much easier to see the difference between
a reissue torso vs. a vintage torso than it is to distinguish between old light
gray and light bluish gray bricks. And, the grays are purely “cosmetic” differences,
not functional differences. Wouldn’t it save sellers far more effort to just
merge those color variants? I guess the point is that the logic of these particular
merges feels arbitrary, without further explanation.
I’m not entirely opposed to reducing the specificity of variants in the catalog.
I’m sure there are many genuine examples of overly detailed distinctions between
part variants, and some of those are probably among the ones proposed for merging
here. The timetable for these changes does feel rushed and kind of closed off
to member input, though, which is unfortunate in a community with so many knowledgeable
and passionate participants.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | paulmison | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 02:05 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'm going to guess I'm not the first person to note this, but there are
a lot of replies to dig through, so I'm posting it anyway.
Compare and contrast these lines from the announcement.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
|
…
| | 4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
|
Could I humbly suggest that BrickLink at least postpone this move, or at least
have a similar amount of "marked for deletion" time to allow sellers
(and buyers) more time to adjust?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | zpiotrak | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 02:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think this is worst idea ever. You are destroying history and a work a lot
of people who catalogued all those things. Now it won't even be possible
to check whether older sets contain original parts. Please reconsider it. It
is not a bad thing to retreat from bad ideas.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Cleefuzz | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 02:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This move is not well thought through. I really hope this decision will be reversed.
Some people try to complete vintage sets down to the exact piece, while others
don't want different looking pieces standing out in their MOCs.
Most people using Bricklink to begin with is probably very particular with which
pieces they use, so this move seems directed to a very small audience while hampering
the majority of users.
This will probably end up with people unhappy with the pieces they get, more
unneccesary orders (and shipping) due to chance buying new ones to get the piece
you need. We dont need a piece raffle.
I've been happy with Bricklink to this point, but I guess other Lego marketplaces
will now finally get an upper edge.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | breesy | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 02:45 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | blockbuster | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 03:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hello All,
This is a badly conceived idea that should be reversed.
If a seller files parts under part number some part numbers are going to change
therefore locating the part may be an issue.
It is dumbing down the catalogue buyers will not be able to find the correct
parts they are looking for.
A buyer orders two parts and could be sent two different variants.
Parting out sets is going to create multiple listings of the same part in stores
as the comments field is ignored when combining listings.
Hopefully BL will reconsider before it is to late???????????
Regards all,
Joe.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Duq | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 03:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
|
How exactly do you see that working? Sellers are going to have different ways
to describe variants so it's going to be hell for buyers looking for specific
variants, having to search through notes from tens or hundreds of sellers.
| | For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
|
So how do you imagine wanted lists for specific variants working after this merge?
Does the wanted list include the option to specify "Notes contains the words..."?
Nope.
| | 1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
|
Despite what you say, that's exactly what's going on. You're not
just going to erase the hard work that many volunteers put in, you are now going
to make the site less useful for those dedicated users.
I guess we should have seen this coming when the mothership took over.
I recently needed a variation that's been merged or never recorded. The 2x2
flag has a clip variant that infringes on the 2x2 part of the flag, if that makes
sense. It took posting on the forum, waiting for sellers to reply, then comparing
the stores of those sellers for the rest of my wanted list to eventually buy
what I wanted.
As others have suggested, the proper solution is parent or umbrella parts in
the catalog.
As a seller, if I don't distinguish between variants I list them as the parent.
If I do distinguish I list the individual variants.
As a buyer, if I don't care about the version I put the parent part on my
wanted list, and it will return entries of the parent (by sellers who don't
distinguish) as well as all the variants under that parent. If I'm looking
for a specific variant I can still search for that easily.
Doing this will still make it easy for new users who don't care about exact
variants, without making it extremely hard for collectors to find exactly what
they want.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | otaznik | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 04:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think this is a really bad idea. You will put in a trash can all time and work
what sellers gave to sorting to have suitable offer for customers who are looking
for exact mold / print / stud / etc.
I understand you want help, but at the end it won't help but makes more anger
and problems.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | reslig | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 04:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is a terrible idea. Please do not implement it.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cart_rudo | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 04:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| hi
this idea is really a poor one.
everybody uses Bricklink to check inventories - also for old and really old sets.
so if the catalog will be reduced to a catalog without any variants of parts,
this platform loses all of the worth it is now.
please don't go this way and let all the collectors, sellers and AFOLs the
possibility to get the informations needed.
i'ts already possible to sell parts without variants - this is ok.. everyone
can decide, how to sell and how to buy a part.
regards
cart_rudo
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | steentjesseller | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 04:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Nooooo! This is a VERY bad idea. Don't do this! Bricklink is the only place
that accurately keeps track of these mould differences. Both as a buyer AND as
a seller I care about these differences because it can REALLY help with recompleting
old sets to be period-accurate. These part types are now registered in your database.
People can look up what comes in which set. How are we supposed to do that after
this change? Mixing 2x2 tiles without groove with those that have them is not
something anyone would want to do. People will no longer know which sets they
came from, so it will become a lot harder to find them to complete a 70s homemaker
set, or to get a good amount of them. And conversely, nobody will be able to
find them -and thus buy them- if you DO have them for sale this way. And while
yes, it is some effort for sellers to distinguish them when listing them... come
on man! In this hobby details matter. It has never been a breeze to put parts
in an inventory, and mistakes will always happen. These mould veriants are significant
and are more worth the extra bit of effort than the converse of it being horrible
to find out more about them. Bricklink should pride itself in its catalog as
a resource, instead of feeling ashamed for its intricacies! And while it is not
complete on mould differences, the database shouldn't just give in and remove
the information that IS there. Just because something is not perfect that doesn't
mean it can be made even LESS perfect!!!
Believe me when I say that people DO distinguish between these parts. Many, many
people. My customers always appreciate the detail with which they can choose.
I appreciate being able to find which parts are not period-appropriate if I buy
something second-hand and half of a variant is X shaped and half is + shaped.
I appreciate being able to then find and buy the right amount of that variant
from multiple stores along with other parts in a wanted list. And as a seller
I appreciate being able to put every part on sale accurately, as someone somewhere
might need that one and with the current system I can provide it to that person!
Don't do this. You think you're helping people but you're just taking
away all almonds for everyone because one or two might be allergic. It's
a waste. It's senseless. And those almonds will cease to exist. There will
be no record on them.
PLEASE RECONSIDER
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 05:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Mixing 2x2 tiles without groove with those that have them is not
something anyone would want to do.
|
That is true. And they aren't planning to do that.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | nuukee | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hi,
what I do not understand and have not seen addressed neither in the email nor
in the help page:
What happens to my current inventory? How can I easily find out what is affected?
Typically I go to my store inventory and see a message like this:
"1 Lot in My Store Inventory Marked for Deletion in Catalog"
Will this be handled in the same way?
Thanks,
Sven
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | nuukee | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Ok found the answers in the thread somewhere.
Which is not so easy
In Catalog, nuukee writes:
| | Hi,
what I do not understand and have not seen addressed neither in the email nor
in the help page:
What happens to my current inventory? How can I easily find out what is affected?
Typically I go to my store inventory and see a message like this:
"1 Lot in My Store Inventory Marked for Deletion in Catalog"
Will this be handled in the same way?
Thanks,
Sven
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickspert_AU | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 20:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, nuukee writes:
| | Ok found the answers in the thread somewhere.
Which is not so easy
|
I'd love to know what the answer(s) was/are, I'm struggling to find them
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | GraysBricks | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 05:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| HI,
Sounds positive overall. In the future please could seller email announcements
for some important news come out at the same time as forum posts. For those of
us that don't check the forum regularly or at all, the notice period has
been significantly decreased.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 06:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, GraysBricks writes:
| | HI,
Sounds positive overall. In the future please could seller email announcements
for some important news come out at the same time as forum posts. For those of
us that don't check the forum regularly or at all, the notice period has
been significantly decreased.
|
I think it would be better if they do post anything like this first in the forum,
allow discussion between the self-selecting people that visit the forum and the
admins, and then repost a new thread when mass emailing taking into account any
previous discussion after the first forum post.
I don't think the first post was very clear, but in the two weeks since the
original post, many of the concerns or ambiguities raised here have been cleared
up. A new post taking into account the forum discussion could have it made it
clear(er) what is happening to the 100 times more people reading about it now
they have the email. I wonder how many people posting in the past 24 hours or
creating youtube videos about it have read further than the first post, and thus
missed on on the clarifications that were made throughout the discussion over
the past two weeks. Putting that information in a new post and linking to that
instead would stop the same questions or comments coming up again and again.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| |
I don't think the first post was very clear, but in the two weeks since the
original post, many of the concerns or ambiguities raised here have been cleared
up. A new post taking into account the forum discussion could have it made it
clear(er) what is happening to the 100 times more people reading about it now
they have the email. I wonder how many people posting in the past 24 hours or
creating youtube videos about it have read further than the first post, and thus
missed on on the clarifications that were made throughout the discussion over
the past two weeks.
|
Almost no one, based on the content of the posts and youtube videos.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:14 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, GraysBricks writes:
| | HI,
Sounds positive overall. In the future please could seller email announcements
for some important news come out at the same time as forum posts. For those of
us that don't check the forum regularly or at all, the notice period has
been significantly decreased.
|
This won't happen. Bricklink chooses to communicate through the forums. The
original post announcing these changes is over 2 weeks old. You will have to
check the forum more frequently to stay abreast of changes. It's the only
way.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bricknationtoys | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 05:14 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| We at Bricknation Toys are against the changes in the proposed form for a number
of reasons.
BrickLink on many occasions throughout the years claimed that the extensive catalogue
built by countless volunteers is the companies main asset. What's coming
is a direct contradiction to the above as it will be devaluing the catalogue
and will decrease it's usefilness for the LEFO fan community as a whole -
builders, collectors, historians, sellers etc.
Many proposed entries will make shopping a much worse experience, for some customers
resembling a lottery.
This will in turn create issues for sellers who will need to deal with increase
in customer dissatisfaction and all what comes with it - emails, returns, bad
feedback etc.
Bad idea
Best regards,
Bricknation Toys Team
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 05:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bricknationtoys writes:
| | This will in turn create issues for sellers who will need to deal with increase
in customer dissatisfaction and all what comes with it - emails, returns, bad
feedback etc.
|
For this particular argument it will have the opposite effect since buyer expectations
will be lowered as it will be widely understood by everyone that sellers will
no longer be responsible for ensuring these minor variants are accurate. Right
now all the expectation and onus is unfairly put on the seller to list exactly
as per the catalog or risk buyer dissatisfaction. Putting the onus/responsibility
back on the buyer to ask the question is the only fair and right way to go since
buyer/collector knowledge usually supersedes the knowledge of your average seller
when it comes to minor variants like this and should anyone really require a
degree in Lego variants to be able to successfully sell here? I'm not so
sure!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | corkscrewloop | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 05:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| One of the main reasons to use Bricklink is to know all mold variants which exist
from a part, especially since for many projects a dedicated mold is required
or to be avoided. If we can't distinguish the parts anymore exactly, how
can we be sure what we order? This will cause huge troubles. Removing such knowledge
from the database is a BAD idea. It will confuse sellers and customers. Please,
don't do it.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SB.Shop | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 06:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I Guess for some parts the might be useful when the difference of the mold does
not make any difference on how the brick can be used or build. But for Hinges
with Teeth - Ex. Part 39893 this makes an extrem impact. The angles in which
they are connected is way to different to merge them together.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 06:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SB.Shop writes:
| | I Guess for some parts the might be useful when the difference of the mold does
not make any difference on how the brick can be used or build. But for Hinges
with Teeth - Ex. Part 39893 this makes an extrem impact. The angles in which
they are connected is way to different to merge them together.
|
Out of interest, have you ever used these parts?
https://bricksafe.com/files/1963maniac/Screenshot%20(178).png
The additional images on BL also show the teeth to be in exactly the same place,
just with one pair of teeth missing.
So how are you getting extremely different angles?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | stevetq2 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 06:11 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Since the email went out there has been a massive backlash about this change.
I suggest everyone sends their concerns directly to BrickLink Admin (via the
help page) to make sure your voice is heard.
Regards
Steve
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | zombitroid | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 06:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| If I have parts in these categories, will I need to relist them after the variants
are deleted or will they still show in my store? I feel like this question
should be in the FAQ
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 06:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| If you have two lots , one for each of two variations ( different part numbers
) that are to be changed then you will still have two lots in your store.
They will then both have the same part number, it will not merge lots.
You will need to merge these if you do not want them separated any longer or
you have to add a note to the changed item/s if you want separate entries to
show that they are not exactly the same.
In Catalog, zombitroid writes:
| | If I have parts in these categories, will I need to relist them after the variants
are deleted or will they still show in my store? I feel like this question
should be in the FAQ
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Dusty_King | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 06:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | revilor | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 07:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hello Bricklink-Team,
I appreciate all the work you do for the LEGO community, but please consider
to not put this change to the database in place. A better way IMHO would be to
filter/consolidate part variants in the UI for buyers and sellers who don't
care, but as an option allow people to list/get a specific variant if they want
to. Please don't strip the detailed data the community has collected over
all the years out of your database. At least consider a community vote on the
issue.
Cheers,
revilor
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 08:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Community vote won’t work, sadly.
We are seeing what I believe to be an overwhelming number of no change views
here on the forum but that represents a small percentage of total members and
that won’t be accepted.
If you by some miracle, could get the main membership to vote then I believe
the majority wouldn’t care, how the yes and the no vote would break down is anyone’s
guess.
Not hazarding a guess at percentages, unlike some, as these are just plucked
from the air, that’s how I see it anyway.
Sadly I don’t see how any amount of “no” messages here will make any difference,
not helped by inaccurate interpretations of proposals.
Very sad time for the collectors, set rebuilders and historians etc as I see
it, this makes finding the right part for them far more difficult.
Yes you can add notes which will be difficult to find and time consuming.
You can ask the seller, who may or may not like answering, takes time and
effort just like sorting correct variations.
Asking questions can earn you a place on a stop list, we have seen posts on here
asking why they (the buyer) were stop listed for asking if they have the exact
part.
We also see posts defending this from sellers saying they are too busy to spend
time answering fussy or difficult buyers ( their opinion ).
People will also say “it’s the sellers loss, take your money elsewhere”, not
always possible.
I am apprehensive that many more will be added to merging lists, after all it’ll
come down to a few people deciding what is an isn’t valid anymore.
Very little if anything said here will make any difference as the fall back will
be that the forum is not representative, that I can’t argue with.
In Catalog, revilor writes:
| | Hello Bricklink-Team,
I appreciate all the work you do for the LEGO community, but please consider
to not put this change to the database in place. A better way IMHO would be to
filter/consolidate part variants in the UI for buyers and sellers who don't
care, but as an option allow people to list/get a specific variant if they want
to. Please don't strip the detailed data the community has collected over
all the years out of your database. At least consider a community vote on the
issue.
Cheers,
revilor
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 08:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think you summarize this very well, alas.
I will say that as someone who is clearly critical of this impending mass merge
- and who has been just as clearly dismissed by the admin here as "not representative"
and "misrepresenting the situation" as you note, I think there are reasonable
compromises that can be made. So I don't know that the nay-sayers are absolute
in their opposition.
For example:
1. Removing the phrase "with groove" from tile listings, and retaining
only the "without groove" label for the old tiles that don't have
a groove, seems totally reasonable to me. Each type of tile will remain separate
in the catalogue, and that's what's important. So no objection to that
change.
2. Merging Duplo parts with and without bottom tubes seems reasonable too - mainly
because Duplo has never been a significant collector's theme and the secondary
market is mainly used for (a) adults who use the parts to cheaply build large,
invisible support structures, and (b) parents giving them to young children.
Neither of these buyer groups cares about small variations in Duplo molds. So
IMHO this merge is totally fine as it is not a meaningful distinction even for
historical documentation reasons among adult collectors.
3. Merging ratchet pieces with different numbers of teeth makes sense because
my understanding is that the two different versions don't actually provide
different amounts of articulation - the 7 and 9-tooth variants both provide the
same number of angles of articulation.
On the other hand, I see at least three proposed merges that really don't
make any sense given who uses the database and who buys here:
1. Trans-clear bricks with and without tubes: the entire point of trans pieces
is their transparency. Buyers need to know how a trans-clear brick will look,
and with vs without tubes makes a huge difference in appearance, especially if
one is using many such bricks together and wants a uniform appearance.
2. Prong vs no-prong torsos. Its well-known - and well-understood by everyone
including BL administration - that it makes a big difference if a classic space
or similar vintage torso is from the alte 1970s/1980s or a reissue from the past
decade or so. It's meaningful for database/catalogue documentation purposes,
for collector purposes, and for price purposes in the marketplace. The vintage
torsos go for a price premium because of their collector value, and buyers absolutely,
positively want to be able to want-list, search, and purchase based on that distinction.
3. Smooth vs textured slopes. I don't think this is an important issue collecting-wise
- but it seems obvious that folks building models with lots of slopes want all
those slopes to have uniform-looking surfaces. It's just basic.
Finally, there is the important factor that it's important for the adult
Lego community as a whole to have reliable information about what parts - including
mold variations - came with vintage sets. Everyone knows that the majority of
vintage sets sold across the world are reconstituted from parts lots. Even if
it's one's own childhood set, in 99% of cases the parts have been mixed
with one's other childhood sets over the years. On eBay and similar sites,
collectors do not necessarily expect all parts to be period-correct. But at Bricklink
there is that expectation - and buyers and sellers need an accurate catalogue
with variants in order to be able to reconstitute such sets (sellers) and to
be able to ensure they get what they paid for, or else get a partial refund if
something is incorrect (buyers). This is basic to Bricklink - and it's kind
of shocking to me how smug and dismissive BL administration appears to be behaving
towards this large group of users around this issue.
So I think there are many reasonable compromises to be made - and it's obvious
to me that by far the main source of absolutism and a refusal to consider compromise
is BL administration, not the users.
In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Community vote won’t work, sadly.
We are seeing what I believe to be an overwhelming number of no change views
here on the forum but that represents a small percentage of total members and
that won’t be accepted.
If you by some miracle, could get the main membership to vote then I believe
the majority wouldn’t care, how the yes and the no vote would break down is anyone’s
guess.
Not hazarding a guess at percentages, unlike some, as these are just plucked
from the air, that’s how I see it anyway.
Sadly I don’t see how any amount of “no” messages here will make any difference,
not helped by inaccurate interpretations of proposals.
Very sad time for the collectors, set rebuilders and historians etc as I see
it, this makes finding the right part for them far more difficult.
Yes you can add notes which will be difficult to find and time consuming.
You can ask the seller, who may or may not like answering, takes time and
effort just like sorting correct variations.
Asking questions can earn you a place on a stop list, we have seen posts on here
asking why they (the buyer) were stop listed for asking if they have the exact
part.
We also see posts defending this from sellers saying they are too busy to spend
time answering fussy or difficult buyers ( their opinion ).
People will also say “it’s the sellers loss, take your money elsewhere”, not
always possible.
I am apprehensive that many more will be added to merging lists, after all it’ll
come down to a few people deciding what is an isn’t valid anymore.
Very little if anything said here will make any difference as the fall back will
be that the forum is not representative, that I can’t argue with.
In Catalog, revilor writes:
| | Hello Bricklink-Team,
I appreciate all the work you do for the LEGO community, but please consider
to not put this change to the database in place. A better way IMHO would be to
filter/consolidate part variants in the UI for buyers and sellers who don't
care, but as an option allow people to list/get a specific variant if they want
to. Please don't strip the detailed data the community has collected over
all the years out of your database. At least consider a community vote on the
issue.
Cheers,
revilor
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | […]
1. Trans-clear bricks with and without tubes: the entire point of trans pieces
is their transparency. Buyers need to know how a trans-clear brick will look,
and with vs without tubes makes a huge difference in appearance, especially if
one is using many such bricks together and wants a uniform appearance.
|
AFAICS in the proposed changes, excepting the DUPLO bricks you already agreed
to, there’s only the bricks 2454 / 46212 that differentiate between with and
without supports (not exactly tubes), that came in Trans colours, and that will
be merged.
And:
— There’s never been 1x2x5 bricks with supports in Trans colours (though some
lots are already being and have already been sold under this entry).
— The only colours that came in both types were old colours. As said in the
list: “(only for Black, Blue, Light Gray, Red and White).”
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
So that point is moot.
Now, that was the older solid colours, in the older sets, for which we will lose
the “collector” info.
Collectors will (unfortunately) need to check for them the same way they have
to check for full/hollow pins in 1xN bricks (a difference that no one is whining
about, because it was never made by BL).
| | […]
3. Smooth vs textured slopes. I don't think this is an important issue collecting-wise
- but it seems obvious that folks building models with lots of slopes want all
those slopes to have uniform-looking surfaces. It's just basic.
|
The smooth ones are rare and, for most of them, it was never clear if it was
intentional or worned-out moulds.
I think it’s akin to the slot in the headlight brick.
| | So I think there are many reasonable compromises to be made - and it's obvious
to me that by far the main source of absolutism and a refusal to consider compromise
is BL administration, not the users.
|
Russell already clarified a few changes and put a hold on others.
The first message was not clear enough and linking to that thread in the e-mail,
while it already had more than 200 answers that no one will read, instead of
making a new, clearer post, was IMHO a(nother) communication mistake.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 12:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
The first message was not clear enough and linking to that thread in the e-mail,
while it already had more than 200 answers that no one will read,
|
You sure about that
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | |
The first message was not clear enough and linking to that thread in the e-mail,
while it already had more than 200 answers that no one will read,
|
You sure about that
|
Amendment: “no one SANE will read”
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 15:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | |
The first message was not clear enough and linking to that thread in the e-mail,
while it already had more than 200 answers that no one will read,
|
You sure about that
|
Amendment: “no one SANE will read”
|
crazy, i was crazy once.......
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | On eBay and similar sites,
collectors do not necessarily expect all parts to be period-correct. But at Bricklink
there is that expectation - and buyers and sellers need an accurate catalogue
with variants in order to be able to reconstitute such sets (sellers) and to
be able to ensure they get what they paid for, or else get a partial refund if
something is incorrect (buyers). This is basic to Bricklink - and it's kind
of shocking to me how smug and dismissive BL administration appears to be behaving
towards this large group of users around this issue.
|
I think the "period correct" point is interesting. I imagine many used
sets sold here do not contain all the period correct parts now, as many of the
basic bricks in them will be incorrect, as bricklink doesn't distinguish
the variants in the undersides. Yet most people seem to be happy enough with
that because they are not seen as important variations. Once the merges are made,
BL will no longer distinguish some more variants, so there are no longer period
correct/incorrect variants of those parts.
There are also many other variants with different element numbers given by LEGO,
where parts are either indistinguishable or have minor but present cosmetic variants.
* | | 48729b Bar 1L with Clip Mechanical Claw - Cut Edges and Hole on Side
Parts: Bar |
I attach two current renders, these parts are clearly different. The shape of
the clip is different, as is the size of the flat piece on the bar. And the extra
images for the part entry show there are variants of the variants. But it seems
people don't care too much since these are all treated as the same part,
even though the parts have different moulds and IDs. So why are people not caring
about those differences? Why do those sets not have to have the exact element
IDs that are listed in the instruction manuals?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | On the other hand, I see at least three proposed merges that really don't
make any sense given who uses the database and who buys here:
1. Trans-clear bricks with and without tubes: the entire point of trans pieces
is their transparency. Buyers need to know how a trans-clear brick will look,
and with vs without tubes makes a huge difference in appearance, especially if
one is using many such bricks together and wants a uniform appearance.
|
This isn't being done.
| | 2. Prong vs no-prong torsos. Its well-known - and well-understood by everyone
including BL administration - that it makes a big difference if a classic space
or similar vintage torso is from the alte 1970s/1980s or a reissue from the past
decade or so. It's meaningful for database/catalogue documentation purposes,
for collector purposes, and for price purposes in the marketplace. The vintage
torsos go for a price premium because of their collector value, and buyers absolutely,
positively want to be able to want-list, search, and purchase based on that distinction.
|
This was tabled for further study and isn't being done at this time.
| | 3. Smooth vs textured slopes. I don't think this is an important issue collecting-wise
- but it seems obvious that folks building models with lots of slopes want all
those slopes to have uniform-looking surfaces. It's just basic.
|
I agree, there's a big difference between the textured and smooth look of
slopes.
Here's a link for the merges being done:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
| | This is basic to Bricklink - and it's kind
of shocking to me how smug and dismissive BL administration appears to be behaving
towards this large group of users around this issue.
|
You may not like some of the changes, but I'm not seeing any smug or dismissive
behavior by BL admins.
| | So I think there are many reasonable compromises to be made - and it's obvious
to me that by far the main source of absolutism and a refusal to consider compromise
is BL administration, not the users.
|
The torso merge has already been suspended. Let's see what happens.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:44 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thank you for this information - I was unaware and appreciate the correction
and the new information!
In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | On the other hand, I see at least three proposed merges that really don't
make any sense given who uses the database and who buys here:
1. Trans-clear bricks with and without tubes: the entire point of trans pieces
is their transparency. Buyers need to know how a trans-clear brick will look,
and with vs without tubes makes a huge difference in appearance, especially if
one is using many such bricks together and wants a uniform appearance.
|
This isn't being done.
| | 2. Prong vs no-prong torsos. Its well-known - and well-understood by everyone
including BL administration - that it makes a big difference if a classic space
or similar vintage torso is from the alte 1970s/1980s or a reissue from the past
decade or so. It's meaningful for database/catalogue documentation purposes,
for collector purposes, and for price purposes in the marketplace. The vintage
torsos go for a price premium because of their collector value, and buyers absolutely,
positively want to be able to want-list, search, and purchase based on that distinction.
|
This was tabled for further study and isn't being done at this time.
| | 3. Smooth vs textured slopes. I don't think this is an important issue collecting-wise
- but it seems obvious that folks building models with lots of slopes want all
those slopes to have uniform-looking surfaces. It's just basic.
|
I agree, there's a big difference between the textured and smooth look of
slopes.
Here's a link for the merges being done:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
| | This is basic to Bricklink - and it's kind
of shocking to me how smug and dismissive BL administration appears to be behaving
towards this large group of users around this issue.
|
You may not like some of the changes, but I'm not seeing any smug or dismissive
behavior by BL admins.
| | So I think there are many reasonable compromises to be made - and it's obvious
to me that by far the main source of absolutism and a refusal to consider compromise
is BL administration, not the users.
|
The torso merge has already been suspended. Let's see what happens.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | johniv4 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 08:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| a needed change. I mean lets face reality lego changes molds from plant to plant
and even mid production runs, in most of my mocs I don't care about the version
and it makes want lists complicated. also I have literally looked in new sets
for parts listed in bricklink and the variant it shows is not the one in there
its a different version then what in the brand new package. the problem is only
going to get worse as Lego sells more and more quantity and swap out molds. all
that being said ya it kind of sucks for the old vintage stuff but there is just
too many new versions floating out there anyway and no guaranty for newer stuff
that the variant called out is even the one they actually used in new sets. so
they have to start drawing the lines somewhere.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | the_lego_zora | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 08:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please don't do this. It will make it much harder to get the right pieces.
For those who don't care about the difference, They could still find a piece
before. For those who do care, this will make it near impossible, one would have
to message every seller one by one.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | vortexico | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is a Terrible idea, please do not do this!!!
A lot of these merges are not compatible functionally and cosmetically.
Such changes are irreversible and completely undermine the strength of bricklink!
Just add an option for buyers: "do not care about mold variants".
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | longwallmining | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 09:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
Ok, who’s upset the new owner…?? What a tuff start to this years KPI targets.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | JulieK | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 10:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hi Russell,
On the page that lists the variant merges, can BL list them with a link to the
catalog?
It would be a big time saver for us to check if we have the parts in our inventory.
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
Thanks,
Julie
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 10:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, JulieK writes:
| | Hi Russell,
On the page that lists the variant merges, can BL list them with a link to the
catalog?
It would be a big time saver for us to check if we have the parts in our inventory.
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
Thanks,
Julie
|
Here’s a quick and dirty copy with links: http://slswww.free.fr/bl_changes_feb24.html
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | JulieK | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 11:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
Awesome! Thanks so much!!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 12:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
No https! Suspicious
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
Free.fr is a French ISP. And those are the “personal pages” offered with free
e-mail accounts. They don’t allow https
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:57 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
Free.fr is a French ISP. And those are the “personal pages” offered with free
e-mail accounts. They don’t allow https
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DDSEnt | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 10:12 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | icebeast | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 11:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| For me it's a huge NO.
Being able to tell apart some of the variations of bricks is essential for completing
sets. This affects not only the collectors, but also those who would love to
complete their childhood sets with missing/broken pieces (like myself!). Being
unable to tell apart if i.e. we are buying a head with hollow or solid stud (which
were manufactured in completely different years, even when the set one is trying
to complete did not yet exist) makes this almost impossible.
Furthermore, BrickLink being an actual and the biggest existing database of sets
and pieces, is an invaluable tool in terms of knowledge and Lego history. This
change would really degrade the information on older sets.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | kiyoshioni | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 11:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
This is not a great idea. I think most people who make MOCs want specific pieces
and don't want to roll the dice to see if they get the correct variant of
a piece. I think you're going to get a lot of upset people returning the
variants that they don't want and thus making it a bigger headache for sellers.
Giving the option to toggle that option on the buyer's end might be a good
way to alleviate that.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
I've been restoring sets from the 80's and 90's and some of these
differences are important. I vote no to this idea. Volunteers helped make the
database great because of these differences.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ioculus | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 13:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| There are pros and cons (as usual). Maybe there could be a default mold (the
newest one) but the others saved as submolds? The thing is that when buying bricks
I want to be sure I buy the same bricks and not a bunch of similar but still
different molds. What about recreating old sets? It would make it much more difficult
to find the right bricks. As it seems to make things easier, I think it will
in fact have the opposite effect. Unhappy customers who got a mix of different
molds, people having trouble finding the right mold. Please, don't do it.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Daz_Hoo | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
Of all the things that could (and should) be improved with Bricklink, merging
parts variants in the catalog should not be the top priority for Bricklink admins.
Navigation, security, search engine, better responsive design... Bringing the
site up to the 2020's standards should be top priority for the team.
These mergers of parts are NOT a priority, even more so because they make NO
sense and will create more problems for sellers and collectors, especially when
it comes to vintage parts and sets.
The fact that, in your own words, consider those variants "to be relatively
unimportant and cumbersome from the viewpoint of the BrickLink marketplace"
is an insult to AFOLs, collectors and LEGO connaisseurs.
The community is crying out loud Bricklink admins. You guys should listen.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I hope that the BrickLink administration team has really considered all the ramifications
of this action. Especially when it comes to buyer protection and in terms of
preventing scams or scalpers using this downgrading of the system.
Say this goes into effect do you think a bad faith actor will care for example
if they have the new version of the classic space torso or the old one to lower
their price? Do you think bad faith actors will care to secify at all or even
correctly which variant they have? I certainly don't and if this change somehow
makes it so that all classic space torso despite year released averages around
25 USD. Would you call this a succesful update? Would you call this a succesful
update when seller and buyer disputes roll in due to mix ups or other problems
caused by this change?
I can't see that this changes was properly thought out. If I'm wrong
please enlighten me.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 15:05 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | I hope that the BrickLink administration team has really considered all the ramifications
of this action. Especially when it comes to buyer protection and in terms of
preventing scams or scalpers using this downgrading of the system.
Say this goes into effect do you think a bad faith actor will care for example
if they have the new version of the classic space torso or the old one to lower
their price? Do you think bad faith actors will care to secify at all or even
correctly which variant they have? I certainly don't and if this change somehow
makes it so that all classic space torso despite year released averages around
25 USD. Would you call this a succesful update? Would you call this a succesful
update when seller and buyer disputes roll in due to mix ups or other problems
caused by this change?
I can't see that this changes was properly thought out. If I'm wrong
please enlighten me.
|
Why is this any different to now? If a scammer wants to take a modern torso and
knowingly pass it off as a vintage one, then they can do this now by listing
it as the wrong item.
If they are merged and they don't specify what they have, then you can assume
it is the common / cheaper one.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | If they are merged and they don't specify what they have, then you can assume
it is the common / cheaper one.
|
It is different now because of two things.
1. Now if you want a original torso in good condition you have a reliable way
to get it with pretty good protection. As you can easily discern the problem
and connecting to a seller if you report it. Removing variants will make the
seller sold me the wrong piece argument weaker and worsen buyers protection.
2. Cheaper listings will disapper in favor for more expensive listings either
because they are being bought up by these people who will try to manipulate the
market or because people will misjudge a pieces inherent value because it will
be unclear for new sellers what is which.
Basically this update creates more confusion that it leviates and will probably
cause problems for sellers and buyers alike.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 17:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | I hope that the BrickLink administration team has really considered all the ramifications
of this action. Especially when it comes to buyer protection and in terms of
preventing scams or scalpers using this downgrading of the system.
Say this goes into effect do you think a bad faith actor will care for example
if they have the new version of the classic space torso or the old one to lower
their price? Do you think bad faith actors will care to secify at all or even
correctly which variant they have? I certainly don't and if this change somehow
makes it so that all classic space torso despite year released averages around
25 USD. Would you call this a succesful update? Would you call this a succesful
update when seller and buyer disputes roll in due to mix ups or other problems
caused by this change?
I can't see that this changes was properly thought out. If I'm wrong
please enlighten me.
|
Why is this any different to now? If a scammer wants to take a modern torso and
knowingly pass it off as a vintage one, then they can do this now by listing
it as the wrong item.
If they are merged and they don't specify what they have, then you can assume
it is the common / cheaper one.
|
Ah, good ol' assumptions. What every marketplace should be based upon!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Addminek | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 15:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That's very bed news completing old sets will be impossible please change
Your mind and do not do this
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | halvorsen | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 15:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| It will significantly degrade the usability of BL for restoration of old/vintage
sets. What a shame.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | misbi | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 16:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| If tiles 3068b, 3069b and 3070b are to be renumbered with the 'b' suffix
removed, how will this affect decorated versions of those tiles? Are all of
the decorated tiles also going to be renumbered with the corresponding 'b'
removed?
Hopefully not 🙄
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 17:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, misbi writes:
| | If tiles 3068b, 3069b and 3070b are to be renumbered with the 'b' suffix
removed, how will this affect decorated versions of those tiles? Are all of
the decorated tiles also going to be renumbered with the corresponding 'b'
removed?
Hopefully not 🙄
|
Technically, they should be, because the 3068b prefix will no longer mean anything.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, misbi writes:
| | If tiles 3068b, 3069b and 3070b are to be renumbered with the 'b' suffix
removed, how will this affect decorated versions of those tiles? Are all of
the decorated tiles also going to be renumbered with the corresponding 'b'
removed?
Hopefully not 🙄
|
We could do a half-way job and just leave the part numbers to posterity, but
I believe we will complete the task and make the changes. Not all at once, though.
These will likely be changed over a period of 2 weeks between Feb 1 and Feb 15.
|
the email says
"On February 15, 2024, the BrickLink catalog will start making some changes"
but now you are saying starting on feb 1 so which is it?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 178 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, misbi writes:
| | If tiles 3068b, 3069b and 3070b are to be renumbered with the 'b' suffix
removed, how will this affect decorated versions of those tiles? Are all of
the decorated tiles also going to be renumbered with the corresponding 'b'
removed?
Hopefully not 🙄
|
We could do a half-way job and just leave the part numbers to posterity, but
I believe we will complete the task and make the changes. Not all at once, though.
These will likely be changed over a period of 2 weeks between Feb 1 and Feb 15.
|
the email says
"On February 15, 2024, the BrickLink catalog will start making some changes"
but now you are saying starting on feb 1 so which is it?
|
I will post about this later at the start of a new thread, but the 11th part
of this project involving the tiles will be commenced on February 1 because it
doesn't involve sellers adding notes. We could do it today, actually, but
there are plenty of other things to do in the meantime, including making an XML
list for sellers.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, misbi writes:
| | If tiles 3068b, 3069b and 3070b are to be renumbered with the 'b' suffix
removed, how will this affect decorated versions of those tiles? Are all of
the decorated tiles also going to be renumbered with the corresponding 'b'
removed?
Hopefully not 🙄
|
We could do a half-way job and just leave the part numbers to posterity, but
I believe we will complete the task and make the changes. Not all at once, though.
These will likely be changed over a period of 2 weeks between Feb 1 and Feb 15.
|
the email says
"On February 15, 2024, the BrickLink catalog will start making some changes"
but now you are saying starting on feb 1 so which is it?
|
I will post about this later at the start of a new thread, but the 11th part
of this project involving the tiles will be commenced on February 1 because it
doesn't involve sellers adding notes. We could do it today, actually, but
there are plenty of other things to do in the meantime, including making an XML
list for sellers.
|
thankyou for the clarification
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Llewyn | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 11:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | I will post about this later at the start of a new thread, but the 11th part
of this project involving the tiles will be commenced on February 1 because it
doesn't involve sellers adding notes. We could do it today, actually, but
there are plenty of other things to do in the meantime, including making an XML
list for sellers.
|
It does affect a whole mass of other things though: integration with Studio,
importing of previously downloaded wanted lists (as BL doesn't have a backup
function), importing of parts lists for MOC instructions*, etc.
Your change impacts on the whole Lego fan ecosystem, and is incredibly ill thought
out. Not the changes themselves - I'm ambivalent about those - but your management
of it, lack of planning, non-communication of actual timescales, lack of actual
concrete timescales etc are completely incompatible with the responsibilities
of a platform on this scale.
This should have been planned with a clear notice period (minimum 30 days) to
take effect on a fixed date. That would have allowed the Studio team, Rebrickable
admins, MOC designers etc time to prepare and know when to make their own changes
live. Instead everyone else has been running round after your whim of "the
1st! no the 15th! no some unspecified point between the two!" You would also
have been able to publish a complete list of affected parts at the time the change
was announced, and shouldn't have considered setting a deadline until you'd
identified that.
If you were one of my project managers we'd have been having a disciplinary
review meeting this week. Bricklink clearly cares far less about its customers
though.
*A lot has been made of this change simplifying things for newbies, but so many
newbies' first experience of buying parts on BL is as a result of getting
a parts list for a custom build. I'm sure their experience will be greatly
improved by upload errors.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Leftoverbricks | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 11:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Well expressed criticism! +1 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Llewyn writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | I will post about this later at the start of a new thread, but the 11th part
of this project involving the tiles will be commenced on February 1 because it
doesn't involve sellers adding notes. We could do it today, actually, but
there are plenty of other things to do in the meantime, including making an XML
list for sellers.
|
It does affect a whole mass of other things though: integration with Studio,
importing of previously downloaded wanted lists (as BL doesn't have a backup
function), importing of parts lists for MOC instructions*, etc.
Your change impacts on the whole Lego fan ecosystem, and is incredibly ill thought
out. Not the changes themselves - I'm ambivalent about those - but your management
of it, lack of planning, non-communication of actual timescales, lack of actual
concrete timescales etc are completely incompatible with the responsibilities
of a platform on this scale.
This should have been planned with a clear notice period (minimum 30 days) to
take effect on a fixed date. That would have allowed the Studio team, Rebrickable
admins, MOC designers etc time to prepare and know when to make their own changes
live. Instead everyone else has been running round after your whim of "the
1st! no the 15th! no some unspecified point between the two!" You would also
have been able to publish a complete list of affected parts at the time the change
was announced, and shouldn't have considered setting a deadline until you'd
identified that.
If you were one of my project managers we'd have been having a disciplinary
review meeting this week. Bricklink clearly cares far less about its customers
though.
*A lot has been made of this change simplifying things for newbies, but so many
newbies' first experience of buying parts on BL is as a result of getting
a parts list for a custom build. I'm sure their experience will be greatly
improved by upload errors.
|
+1
Very well put. You've described exactly why I'm so disappointed with
Bricklink. I'm willing to bite the bullet on every change, I simply wish
they would communicate it decently and keep their *own* promises.
Also the choice to do the change slowly "so the changes will be gradually
asorbed" or something seems nonsensical to me and at best an assumption
that is not based on actual communication with impacted parties. It also feels
like a disingenuous post-hoc motivation. Because if Bricklink really was so concerned
with how fast other parties could adapt, then why announce postponing it to 15
Feb, only to suddenly start changing things 2 weeks ahead of that date, and only
casually mentioning that in a random comment that most will miss? That really
seems to contradict the claimed concerns.
We now seem to be in an unsteady state that will last for months. I am still
very much waiting for even a hint of a timeline on any of this mess, so I have
a rough idea what we're dealing with and how to anticipate. Not because I
want more fuel to raise complaints but simply because I want to find solutions.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | misbi | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 02:11 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, misbi writes:
| | If tiles 3068b, 3069b and 3070b are to be renumbered with the 'b' suffix
removed, how will this affect decorated versions of those tiles? Are all of
the decorated tiles also going to be renumbered with the corresponding 'b'
removed?
Hopefully not 🙄
|
We could do a half-way job and just leave the part numbers to posterity, but
I believe we will complete the task and make the changes. Not all at once, though.
These will likely be changed over a period of 2 weeks between Feb 1 and Feb 15.
|
Fair enough. Guess I'll just have to brush up on regex and recusrion (groan)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | misbi | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 02:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, misbi writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, misbi writes:
| | If tiles 3068b, 3069b and 3070b are to be renumbered with the 'b' suffix
removed, how will this affect decorated versions of those tiles? Are all of
the decorated tiles also going to be renumbered with the corresponding 'b'
removed?
Hopefully not 🙄
|
We could do a half-way job and just leave the part numbers to posterity, but
I believe we will complete the task and make the changes. Not all at once, though.
These will likely be changed over a period of 2 weeks between Feb 1 and Feb 15.
|
Fair enough. Guess I'll just have to brush up on regex and recusrion (groan)
|
and typing - doh!
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | icm | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 17:36 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is a BAD idea.
Besides the historical value in retaining this information so that we know exactly
what mold types were in old sets and exactly when new mold types were introduced,
many of these differences actually are very noticeable in the look and function
of a build.
Tiles with and without bottom grooves are very different. Without the bottom
groove, they're much harder to remove, which is why the bottom groove was
introduced. It is essential to retain this information to have the correct mold
in old bricklinked sets. More than that, it is essential to retain this information
to avoid getting old tiles without bottom grooves in bricklink orders when you
want a new tile, dangit!
The inverted 33 3x2 slopes with and without connections between studs differ
not only in having connections between studs, but in the thickness of the lip
at the edge of the part. The version with connections has a thicker lip. This
makes a big difference in the look of a build! I hate mixing old and new versions
of this part, because it makes the edge of a row of inverted slopes ragged! Not
straight! Plus the connections between the studs, themselves, form another connection
point for the part.
Removing information on torsos with and without ribs? What madness is this? Those
are completely different parts! It's very useful as a vintage minifig collector
to know when a vintage minifig should have a vintage minifig torso! These aren't
that hard to distinguish for sellers, gosh darnit!
The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part! This will make it very bad
for MOC builders who order one part to fulfill a function and get a different
version that won't fulfill that function, as in Russian roulette! I mean,
this is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in functionality between parts 3794a, 3794b,
and 15573. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WOULD GET RID OF THIS INFORMATION. IT IS SO,
SO, SO IMPORTANT!
I BEG YOU, DON'T DO ANY OF THIS. DON'T GET RID OF ANY OF THIS INFORMATION.
DON'T MERGE ANY OF THESE ENTRIES. THIS IS SUCH A STUPID, IDIOTIC IDEA THAT
GETS RID OF SO MUCH INFORMATION, HISTORY, FUNCTIONALITY, AND USABILITY. CHANGES
LIKE THIS ACTIVELY MAKE BRICKLINK WORSE FOR EVERYBODY. DON'T DO THEM. DON'T
DO THEM. DON'T DO THEM.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | icm | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 17:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
Why - are you saying you don't believe the part physically allows that?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
Why - are you saying you don't believe the part physically allows that?
|
The note is "The inside supports underneath do not fit over a stud."
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 04:46 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
Why - are you saying you don't believe the part physically allows that?
|
It doesn't. It is NOT the same underside as the new Jumpers 15573. Here's
a crappy photo I just took on my cellphone, as you can see the angles of the
inside supports are not the same and they don't allow a stud inside on the
32064c. It is clear that LEGO never intended to use that way:
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 21:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
That seems to be the trend of this thread- most folks misunderstand the variants
of these parts, from the 7 teeth to 9 teeth joints to the 1x2 bricks with axles,
and think that there is an actual functional difference.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 22:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
That seems to be the trend of this thread- most folks misunderstand the variants
of these parts, from the 7 teeth to 9 teeth joints to the 1x2 bricks with axles,
and think that there is an actual functional difference.
|
There _is_ a functional difference with
[p=32064c]
compared to the other variants of the part. That isn't fantasy or conjecture.
That is the truth.
Do exactly what Russell said to do. Try putting a 32064c on top of any 1x2 jumper
plate. Now try it with any of the other variants of the part. Let me know what
you find out.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 00:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
That seems to be the trend of this thread- most folks misunderstand the variants
of these parts, from the 7 teeth to 9 teeth joints to the 1x2 bricks with axles,
and think that there is an actual functional difference.
|
There _is_ a functional difference with
[p=32064c]
compared to the other variants of the part. That isn't fantasy or conjecture.
That is the truth.
Do exactly what Russell said to do. Try putting a 32064c on top of any 1x2 jumper
plate. Now try it with any of the other variants of the part. Let me know what
you find out.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
|
Good, while I've got you here... Who do I have to talk to to replace the
imaginary piece in the inventory for this set?
I know I'm getting annoying here, but after several change requests, it's
unfathomable
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 01:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
That seems to be the trend of this thread- most folks misunderstand the variants
of these parts, from the 7 teeth to 9 teeth joints to the 1x2 bricks with axles,
and think that there is an actual functional difference.
|
There _is_ a functional difference with
[p=32064c]
compared to the other variants of the part. That isn't fantasy or conjecture.
That is the truth.
Do exactly what Russell said to do. Try putting a 32064c on top of any 1x2 jumper
plate. Now try it with any of the other variants of the part. Let me know what
you find out.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
|
Good, while I've got you here... Who do I have to talk to to replace the
imaginary piece in the inventory for this set?
I know I'm getting annoying here, but after several change requests, it's
unfathomable
|
The black version of that part has an element / material handling number assigned
to it from the LEGO Group (4287888). Therefore, there is a chance that the part
existed at some point somewhere, whether it appeared in a set or not. In fact,
there are a lot of parts out there that exist that never showed up in any set.
But did the part you are discussing actually ever show up in that set? Who knows?
For all we know, the parts were made to be used and then ground up when not needed
anymore. If someone has a mint copy of the set from the first production run,
I would really like to see that.
In the meantime, I have done you a solid along with the addition of a shiny new
inventory note. Happy New Year
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | icm | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 12:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
Here's photo proof that these two parts are not interchangeable and should
not be merged in the database. 32064b, with a pin as the central connection underneath,
can only be used as a jumper on open studs. 32064c, with side supports as the
central connection underneath, can (like other parts with that type of connection)
be used as a jumper on solid studs.
This is a MAJOR FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between the parts that could ruin a builder's
day and incur significant extra expenses if they need a lot of 32064c and get
a bunch of 32064b mixed in. By making that a headache and extra expense for buyers,
it will get passed on to sellers as a headache and an extra expense.
It's not that hard to tell these variants apart when you're listing them
for sale. Far better just to leave the variants as they are, with minimal headache
to buyers and sellers alike, than to merge the variants in the database and incur
many large, unending headaches and expenses for everyone. And that goes for every
other proposed variant merge, never mind the priceless, irreplaceable historical
value of maintaining the database as-is.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | This is a MAJOR FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between the parts
|
Yes, the part on the the left has 2 holes.
| | It's not that hard to tell these variants apart when you're listing them
for sale.
|
32064c were produced up to 2008, that's 15 years ago.
Let's see the Black Price Guide: 1900 New approx available.
On those 1900 I *highly* doubt this is a real lot of 1500 Brand New 32064b.
https://store.bricklink.com/BrickMafiaCo?sID=230757&itemID=230292837
That leaves you about 500 New available in the world.
With maybe half of the remaining being inventory errors.
32064, still produced as of today, 268019 New available in the world.
Just for info...
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 13:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | This is a MAJOR FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between the parts
|
Yes, the part on the the left has 2 holes.
|
....
| | That leaves you about 500 New available in the world.
With maybe half of the remaining being inventory errors.
32064, still produced as of today, 268019 New available in the world.
Just for info...
|
Not sure what the point here is. Sellers constantly make inventory errors with
minifig head prints. Are we to merge all heads? Sellers inventory Medium Blue
as Maersk Blue, or Bright Pink parts as Pink. This happens almost every other
time I purchase these. Are we to merge these colors?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | icm | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 13:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | This is a MAJOR FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between the parts
|
Yes, the part on the the left has 2 holes.
| | It's not that hard to tell these variants apart when you're listing them
for sale.
|
32064c were produced up to 2008, that's 15 years ago.
Let's see the Black Price Guide: 1900 New approx available.
On those 1900 I *highly* doubt this is a real lot of 1500 Brand New 32064b.
https://store.bricklink.com/BrickMafiaCo?sID=230757&itemID=230292837
That leaves you about 500 New available in the world.
With maybe half of the remaining being inventory errors.
32064, still produced as of today, 268019 New available in the world.
Just for info...
|
The purpose of including the part on the left is to show that the part in the
middle has the same connection points on the bottom.
I don't know why you're listing numbers of New 32064b and 32064c. There's
a lot more to Bricklink than buying New parts, ie buying Used.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 13:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I don't know why you're listing numbers of New 32064b and 32064c. There's
a lot more to Bricklink than buying New parts, ie buying Used.
|
Sorry I don't buy Used.
I eventually build MOCs, projects.
New is easy to find, quality's fine, and for common parts price is really
close (or better!)
And availability in some quantity (in a single shop) is better.
For these above, even considering Used, there's still far fewer (assuming
the listed lots are the exact version AND the set Inventory is exact also...)
Anyway, I stop here, already told enough about this subject
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 17:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
So functional differences in parts only matter if they've been used in an
official Lego model - but at the same time the fact that you can't properly
verify the inventory of many vintage official Lego models unless you keep the
variants separate in te database is irrelevant?
It seems like you're being awfully selective in which factors matter depending
on which specific merge proposal you're trying to defend in any given moment.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:04 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 14 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 23:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
Sounds like 32064c is back on the chopping block already.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 21:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
There is also a difference in the clutch of the axle hole.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 17:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, icm writes:
| | This is a BAD idea.
[…]
Tiles with and without bottom grooves are very different.
|
Those won’t be merged. It’s a name & ID change only.
| | […]
I mean,
this is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in functionality between parts 3794a, 3794b,
and 15573. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WOULD GET RID OF THIS INFORMATION. IT IS SO,
SO, SO IMPORTANT!
|
You’re right not to believe it because that’s also NOT on the list.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | icm | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 17:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | This is a BAD idea.
[…]
Tiles with and without bottom grooves are very different.
|
Those won’t be merged. It’s a name & ID change only.
| | […]
I mean,
this is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in functionality between parts 3794a, 3794b,
and 15573. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WOULD GET RID OF THIS INFORMATION. IT IS SO,
SO, SO IMPORTANT!
|
You’re right not to believe it because that’s also NOT on the list.
|
I'm sorry, I thought it was all parts with those jumper-type cross supports
that were going to be merged. Anyway, it sure makes a difference to the functionality
of parts 10247 and 46212 whether or not they have the jumper-type cross supports.
For instance, with those supports you can't put 1x1 round tiles up inside
part 46212 like has been done on many recent sets. Imagine wanting to do that
for a MOC and then the part you ordered comes with the cross supports and you
can't use that technique! That would be a bad time. With the cross supports,
you can put 10247 as a jumper on solid studs; without the cross supports, you
can put 10247 as a jumper on open studs. That makes a difference in the build
too!
Don't make any changes to the catalog to merge parts that have different
connections, because those are different parts with different uses!
That can't be so hard to understand, can it?
Different connections. Different parts.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:16 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:20 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, icm writes:
| | […]
I'm sorry, I thought it was all parts with those jumper-type cross supports
that were going to be merged. Anyway, it sure makes a difference to the functionality
of parts 10247 and 46212 whether or not they have the jumper-type cross supports.
For instance, with those supports you can't put 1x1 round tiles up inside
part 46212 like has been done on many recent sets. Imagine wanting to do that
for a MOC and then the part you ordered comes with the cross supports and you
can't use that technique! That would be a bad time. With the cross supports,
you can put 10247 as a jumper on solid studs; without the cross supports, you
can put 10247 as a jumper on open studs. That makes a difference in the build
too!
|
Wrong examples again, you really should check the parts before imagining functional
differences that don’t exist.
10247: the difference with 2444 is shown on a secondary pic on the parts’ pages.
It has absolutely no relation to what you’re saying. The center support prevents
putting some parts inside the pin hole… but it’s not clear why one would want
to do that.
46212: all the parts made in trans-colours have always been without inner support.
The only parts that exist both with and without supports are older solid colours
(Black,
Blue, Light Gray, Red and White). It’s even written in the list https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:57 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | […]
I'm sorry, I thought it was all parts with those jumper-type cross supports
that were going to be merged. Anyway, it sure makes a difference to the functionality
of parts 10247 and 46212 whether or not they have the jumper-type cross supports.
For instance, with those supports you can't put 1x1 round tiles up inside
part 46212 like has been done on many recent sets. Imagine wanting to do that
for a MOC and then the part you ordered comes with the cross supports and you
can't use that technique! That would be a bad time. With the cross supports,
you can put 10247 as a jumper on solid studs; without the cross supports, you
can put 10247 as a jumper on open studs. That makes a difference in the build
too!
|
Wrong examples again, you really should check the parts before imagining functional
differences that don’t exist.
10247: the difference with 2444 is shown on a secondary pic on the parts’ pages.
It has absolutely no relation to what you’re saying. The center support prevents
putting some parts inside the pin hole… but it’s not clear why one would want
to do that.
|
The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
| | 46212: all the parts made in trans-colours have always been without inner support.
The only parts that exist both with and without supports are older solid colours
(Black,
Blue, Light Gray, Red and White). It’s even written in the list https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
| | | | With the cross supports,
you can put 10247 as a jumper on solid studs; without the cross supports, you
can put 10247 as a jumper on open studs. That makes a difference in the build
too!
|
Wrong examples again, you really should check the parts before imagining functional
differences that don’t exist.
10247: the difference with 2444 is shown on a secondary pic on the parts’ pages.
It has absolutely no relation to what you’re saying. The center support prevents
putting some parts inside the pin hole… but it’s not clear why one would want
to do that.
|
The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
|
Hmm, okay. I’d have thought the underside pin would be enough to grip a hollow
stud but I don’t have any 2444.
(Anyway, that’s not the use case argumented by icm.)
| | The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
|
Well, I still think the redesign is about blocking the pin hole in order to not
manage to stuck 2780 the wrong way
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
| | | | With the cross supports,
you can put 10247 as a jumper on solid studs; without the cross supports, you
can put 10247 as a jumper on open studs. That makes a difference in the build
too!
|
Wrong examples again, you really should check the parts before imagining functional
differences that don’t exist.
10247: the difference with 2444 is shown on a secondary pic on the parts’ pages.
It has absolutely no relation to what you’re saying. The center support prevents
putting some parts inside the pin hole… but it’s not clear why one would want
to do that.
|
The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
|
Hmm, okay. I’d have thought the underside pin would be enough to grip a hollow
stud but I don’t have any 2444.
(Anyway, that’s not the use case argumented by icm.)
|
The underside pin on 2444 is not the same size as a 3.18mm bar. It's smaller.
| |
| | The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
|
Well, I still think the redesign is about blocking the pin hole in order to not
manage to stuck 2780 the wrong way
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
|
So in theory, if we can find 1 set that has a 1x2 jumper under the modern base
of 1 it should then mean it cant be merged if I'm understanding correctly?
but then even if we dont find it and then a year later lego does do that it would
be something that has to be split again if I understand correctly?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
|
So in theory, if we can find 1 set that has a 1x2 jumper under the modern base
of 1 it should then mean it cant be merged if I'm understanding correctly?
|
Yes.
| | but then even if we dont find it and then a year later lego does do that it would
be something that has to be split again if I understand correctly?
|
Yes, again. This is one of the main reasons losing information that is already
here is not a good plan.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Just start coding a database with umbrella options and WAIT. There is no urgency
to this project.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:52 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Just start coding a database with umbrella options and WAIT. There is no urgency
to this project.
|
+1 that option would make 100% of users happy instead of making some happy and
really annoying others.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
|
So in theory, if we can find 1 set that has a 1x2 jumper under the modern base
of 1 it should then mean it cant be merged if I'm understanding correctly?
|
Yes.
| | but then even if we dont find it and then a year later lego does do that it would
be something that has to be split again if I understand correctly?
|
Yes, again. This is one of the main reasons losing information that is already
here is not a good plan.
|
mhm. a functional difference like this is not a good idea to merge. I just tested
it out, out of curiosity with the parts on hand and it truly has no grip. it
just falls off as there was no stud. Thankyou for clarifying
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | icm | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | […]
I'm sorry, I thought it was all parts with those jumper-type cross supports
that were going to be merged. Anyway, it sure makes a difference to the functionality
of parts 10247 and 46212 whether or not they have the jumper-type cross supports.
For instance, with those supports you can't put 1x1 round tiles up inside
part 46212 like has been done on many recent sets. Imagine wanting to do that
for a MOC and then the part you ordered comes with the cross supports and you
can't use that technique! That would be a bad time. With the cross supports,
you can put 10247 as a jumper on solid studs; without the cross supports, you
can put 10247 as a jumper on open studs. That makes a difference in the build
too!
|
Wrong examples again, you really should check the parts before imagining functional
differences that don’t exist.
10247: the difference with 2444 is shown on a secondary pic on the parts’ pages.
It has absolutely no relation to what you’re saying. The center support prevents
putting some parts inside the pin hole… but it’s not clear why one would want
to do that.
46212: all the parts made in trans-colours have always been without inner support.
The only parts that exist both with and without supports are older solid colours
(Black,
Blue, Light Gray, Red and White). It’s even written in the list https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
|
10247 and 2444: You never know what an Iron Builder is going to do. I'm not
that level of MOC builder myself, but that is a different part, with different
connections.
46212: So instead of a simple, easy check for all colors (does it have side supports?
then it's one mold. does it not? then it's another), buyers and sellers
are going to have to manually check for notes, but only for certain colors that
they have to check on a list? How does that make anything easier for anybody?
Maybe you want to shove a tile up a black, blue, light gray, red, or white brick
1x2x5 without side supports for another reason. There shouldn't be confusion
in the database over whether you can do that when you order parts.
The variant system ain't broke. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | _Nadiki_ | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Well since a lot of BrickLink users are talking about this I feel I should throw
my two cents in as well. I primarily use BrickLink for buying and research and
consider the catalogue to be invaluable.
I'll go point by point over each group planned to be consolidated, state
what I understand to be happening based on your statements/community interpretation/etc
and give my thoughts on it.
1. Frosted Bricks
I'm guessing these are being merged with regular bricks with bottom tubes.
This might be a good change, bricks with tubes and bricks without (newer transparent
bricks) already have separate entries and frosted pieces have always been a variant
thing that causes confusion. However if this is something that people are really
passionate about, maybe a "frosted transparent clear" color could be
added for these parts.
2. Smooth Slopes
As I understand it, smooth slopes will be merged with their rough counterparts.
This is a bad merging, as smooth slopes are completely different aesthetically
and are typically more rare. Consolidating them with rough slopes would make
it much harder for buyers to search for seller listings that sell specifically
smooth slopes and be an annoyance to buyers that might receive a mix of smooth
and rough slopes.
3. Connections Between Studs
I'm not entirely sure which way these parts are being merged. If 3747b and
2752 are being merged, this is okay. However merging 3747b and 3747a is not a
good idea because they have different angles due to the thickness of the top
ridge being different. (3747a has a thicker ridge and a shallower slope than
both the other variants.) I don't know what the other 2 entries being affected
are, but presumably it's fine.
4. Sprue Marks
This one's really easy to understand thankfully: the chair with sprue mark
and chair without are being merged. Which is not a good merging. Many people
seek out the chairs without sprues specifically, and having to check for seller
descriptions (which they do not often provide) or hoping they get lucky with
their order is highly inconvenient.
5. Torsos with Ribs
Presumably the classic torsos without ribs are being merged with the reissues
that have them. This a very, very bad merging. Old torsos from Classic Space,
Castle, Pirates, etc. should be kept distinct from their modern reissues due
to the major difference in print quality/durability and the old torsos' extreme
value to collectors, particularly when in mint condition.
6. Inside Supports
There's a lot of entries for this one but not many parts with side supports,
so I'm guessing 1x2 axle bricks and panels with inside supports are getting
merged with their non-support counterparts. This is a good change for the axle
bricks, as there's almost no difference with the non-support version, but
this is a bad change for the panels, as they are completely different inside
due to the support jutting out. You can't make a smooth inner wall nor can
you put old stickers inside of the panels with inside supports.
7. X-Shaped Axle Holes
All bricks with x-shaped axle holes will be merged with their + shaped counterparts.
While technically interchangeable, this is not a good merging due to the clear
aesthetic differences and color exclusives.
8. Hinges with Teeth
There was some misinformation about this one, the 7 teeth and 9 teeth variants
have the same range of motion due to the special bump on the 7 tooth joint. So
functionally identical parts will be merged. Considering the number of entries
and the tiny teeth this is probably a good change honestly. However it might
be good to add a footnote to these entries that the 9 teeth variant is the older
one used up until around 2020.
9. Duplo Bricks with Bottom Tubes
It's Duplo. It's probably fine.
10. Blocked and Vented Studs
Presumably all blocked and vented variants of parts and minifigure heads will
be merged together. This is an excellent and understandable change when it comes
to the printed minifigure heads, as the catalogue was getting very bloated with
all the variants of minifigure heads and it made it extremely hard to search
the database for face prints when certain ones would show up several times.
However, this is NOT a good change when it comes to parts like the 2x2 dome piece
or blank minifigure heads. The vented studs and blocked studs look very different
aesthetically and when those studs aren't covered up they do not look good
next to each other. Differentiating these as a buyer would be awful.
11. Determined Entries for Very Common Parts
There was a lot of confusion surrounding this one, many people thought the old
and rare ungrooved parts were going to be merged with grooved parts. But instead
the "with groove" addendum is being removed from modern parts and the
"without groove" moniker will remain on its respective entries. This
is an excellent change!
Please do not disregard your users' fears simply because they are misinformed
about a few of these mergings. It's not easily apparent from the Help post
which entries are merging with what. These people are passionate about Lego and
treasure BOTH the excellent database and fantastic marketplace you provide.
If I may offer a suggestion: it would be immensely helpful to everyone if you
guys created a variant dropdown menu for parts similar to how it currently works
with color. It would streamline things so much for everyone - buyers, sellers,
and database users alike - and not lead to such extreme database bloat as Lego
creates more and more variants in the future.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 170 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, _Nadiki_ writes:
| | Well since a lot of BrickLink users are talking about this I feel I should throw
my two cents in as well. I primarily use BrickLink for buying and research and
consider the catalogue to be invaluable.
I'll go point by point over each group planned to be consolidated, state
what I understand to be happening based on your statements/community interpretation/etc
and give my thoughts on it.
1. Frosted Bricks
I'm guessing these are being merged with regular bricks with bottom tubes.
This might be a good change, bricks with tubes and bricks without (newer transparent
bricks) already have separate entries and frosted pieces have always been a variant
thing that causes confusion. However if this is something that people are really
passionate about, maybe a "frosted transparent clear" color could be
added for these parts.
2. Smooth Slopes
As I understand it, smooth slopes will be merged with their rough counterparts.
This is a bad merging, as smooth slopes are completely different aesthetically
and are typically more rare. Consolidating them with rough slopes would make
it much harder for buyers to search for seller listings that sell specifically
smooth slopes and be an annoyance to buyers that might receive a mix of smooth
and rough slopes.
3. Connections Between Studs
I'm not entirely sure which way these parts are being merged. If 3747b and
2752 are being merged, this is okay. However merging 3747b and 3747a is not a
good idea because they have different angles due to the thickness of the top
ridge being different. (3747a has a thicker ridge and a shallower slope than
both the other variants.) I don't know what the other 2 entries being affected
are, but presumably it's fine.
4. Sprue Marks
This one's really easy to understand thankfully: the chair with sprue mark
and chair without are being merged. Which is not a good merging. Many people
seek out the chairs without sprues specifically, and having to check for seller
descriptions (which they do not often provide) or hoping they get lucky with
their order is highly inconvenient.
5. Torsos with Ribs
Presumably the classic torsos without ribs are being merged with the reissues
that have them. This a very, very bad merging. Old torsos from Classic Space,
Castle, Pirates, etc. should be kept distinct from their modern reissues due
to the major difference in print quality/durability and the old torsos' extreme
value to collectors, particularly when in mint condition.
6. Inside Supports
There's a lot of entries for this one but not many parts with side supports,
so I'm guessing 1x2 axle bricks and panels with inside supports are getting
merged with their non-support counterparts. This is a good change for the axle
bricks, as there's almost no difference with the non-support version, but
this is a bad change for the panels, as they are completely different inside
due to the support jutting out. You can't make a smooth inner wall nor can
you put old stickers inside of the panels with inside supports.
7. X-Shaped Axle Holes
All bricks with x-shaped axle holes will be merged with their + shaped counterparts.
While technically interchangeable, this is not a good merging due to the clear
aesthetic differences and color exclusives.
8. Hinges with Teeth
There was some misinformation about this one, the 7 teeth and 9 teeth variants
have the same range of motion due to the special bump on the 7 tooth joint. So
functionally identical parts will be merged. Considering the number of entries
and the tiny teeth this is probably a good change honestly. However it might
be good to add a footnote to these entries that the 9 teeth variant is the older
one used up until around 2020.
9. Duplo Bricks with Bottom Tubes
It's Duplo. It's probably fine.
10. Blocked and Vented Studs
Presumably all blocked and vented variants of parts and minifigure heads will
be merged together. This is an excellent and understandable change when it comes
to the printed minifigure heads, as the catalogue was getting very bloated with
all the variants of minifigure heads and it made it extremely hard to search
the database for face prints when certain ones would show up several times.
However, this is NOT a good change when it comes to parts like the 2x2 dome piece
or blank minifigure heads. The vented studs and blocked studs look very different
aesthetically and when those studs aren't covered up they do not look good
next to each other. Differentiating these as a buyer would be awful.
11. Determined Entries for Very Common Parts
There was a lot of confusion surrounding this one, many people thought the old
and rare ungrooved parts were going to be merged with grooved parts. But instead
the "with groove" addendum is being removed from modern parts and the
"without groove" moniker will remain on its respective entries. This
is an excellent change!
Please do not disregard your users' fears simply because they are misinformed
about a few of these mergings. It's not easily apparent from the Help post
which entries are merging with what. These people are passionate about Lego and
treasure BOTH the excellent database and fantastic marketplace you provide.
If I may offer a suggestion: it would be immensely helpful to everyone if you
guys created a variant dropdown menu for parts similar to how it currently works
with color. It would streamline things so much for everyone - buyers, sellers,
and database users alike - and not lead to such extreme database bloat as Lego
creates more and more variants in the future.
|
Thanks for the detailed post!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, _Nadiki_ writes:
| | Well since a lot of BrickLink users are talking about this I feel I should throw
my two cents in as well. I primarily use BrickLink for buying and research and
consider the catalogue to be invaluable.
I'll go point by point over each group planned to be consolidated, state
what I understand to be happening based on your statements/community interpretation/etc
and give my thoughts on it.
1. Frosted Bricks
I'm guessing these are being merged with regular bricks with bottom tubes.
This might be a good change, bricks with tubes and bricks without (newer transparent
bricks) already have separate entries and frosted pieces have always been a variant
thing that causes confusion. However if this is something that people are really
passionate about, maybe a "frosted transparent clear" color could be
added for these parts.
2. Smooth Slopes
As I understand it, smooth slopes will be merged with their rough counterparts.
This is a bad merging, as smooth slopes are completely different aesthetically
and are typically more rare. Consolidating them with rough slopes would make
it much harder for buyers to search for seller listings that sell specifically
smooth slopes and be an annoyance to buyers that might receive a mix of smooth
and rough slopes.
3. Connections Between Studs
I'm not entirely sure which way these parts are being merged. If 3747b and
2752 are being merged, this is okay. However merging 3747b and 3747a is not a
good idea because they have different angles due to the thickness of the top
ridge being different. (3747a has a thicker ridge and a shallower slope than
both the other variants.) I don't know what the other 2 entries being affected
are, but presumably it's fine.
4. Sprue Marks
This one's really easy to understand thankfully: the chair with sprue mark
and chair without are being merged. Which is not a good merging. Many people
seek out the chairs without sprues specifically, and having to check for seller
descriptions (which they do not often provide) or hoping they get lucky with
their order is highly inconvenient.
5. Torsos with Ribs
Presumably the classic torsos without ribs are being merged with the reissues
that have them. This a very, very bad merging. Old torsos from Classic Space,
Castle, Pirates, etc. should be kept distinct from their modern reissues due
to the major difference in print quality/durability and the old torsos' extreme
value to collectors, particularly when in mint condition.
6. Inside Supports
There's a lot of entries for this one but not many parts with side supports,
so I'm guessing 1x2 axle bricks and panels with inside supports are getting
merged with their non-support counterparts. This is a good change for the axle
bricks, as there's almost no difference with the non-support version, but
this is a bad change for the panels, as they are completely different inside
due to the support jutting out. You can't make a smooth inner wall nor can
you put old stickers inside of the panels with inside supports.
7. X-Shaped Axle Holes
All bricks with x-shaped axle holes will be merged with their + shaped counterparts.
While technically interchangeable, this is not a good merging due to the clear
aesthetic differences and color exclusives.
8. Hinges with Teeth
There was some misinformation about this one, the 7 teeth and 9 teeth variants
have the same range of motion due to the special bump on the 7 tooth joint. So
functionally identical parts will be merged. Considering the number of entries
and the tiny teeth this is probably a good change honestly. However it might
be good to add a footnote to these entries that the 9 teeth variant is the older
one used up until around 2020.
9. Duplo Bricks with Bottom Tubes
It's Duplo. It's probably fine.
10. Blocked and Vented Studs
Presumably all blocked and vented variants of parts and minifigure heads will
be merged together. This is an excellent and understandable change when it comes
to the printed minifigure heads, as the catalogue was getting very bloated with
all the variants of minifigure heads and it made it extremely hard to search
the database for face prints when certain ones would show up several times.
However, this is NOT a good change when it comes to parts like the 2x2 dome piece
or blank minifigure heads. The vented studs and blocked studs look very different
aesthetically and when those studs aren't covered up they do not look good
next to each other. Differentiating these as a buyer would be awful.
11. Determined Entries for Very Common Parts
There was a lot of confusion surrounding this one, many people thought the old
and rare ungrooved parts were going to be merged with grooved parts. But instead
the "with groove" addendum is being removed from modern parts and the
"without groove" moniker will remain on its respective entries. This
is an excellent change!
Please do not disregard your users' fears simply because they are misinformed
about a few of these mergings. It's not easily apparent from the Help post
which entries are merging with what. These people are passionate about Lego and
treasure BOTH the excellent database and fantastic marketplace you provide.
If I may offer a suggestion: it would be immensely helpful to everyone if you
guys created a variant dropdown menu for parts similar to how it currently works
with color. It would streamline things so much for everyone - buyers, sellers,
and database users alike - and not lead to such extreme database bloat as Lego
creates more and more variants in the future.
|
Thanks for the detailed post!
|
I agree with the merging of 1, 9, and 10 but the others will be "trubble"
"1" Frosted bricks should have never been introduced into the catalog.
"9" Like he said it's duplo.. just do what ever needed. "10"
And blocked and vented studs on heads really don't matter, as far as I know
the vents where just added as a precaution against chocking.
But the others should stay the same.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mego2k3 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 21:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hi
please don't delete such precious information about our beloved bricks forever!
Regardless of being a buyer or seller, Bricklink is not just a marketplace, it
is the place where history, memory and legacy reside.
Beyond the memory of us all... it was built with effort by the Founders, the
amazing teams and the users, all together to build "The Everything" about
Lego.
We will never know for sure again what pieces made up that set! For those who
love Lego this is not acceptable...
It will not streamline the buying and selling process, but on the contrary it
will clog it up with canceled orders, refunds and disputes between members, it
will be another Babylon like the rest of our world, the oasis of peace it represents
may no longer exist...
I always thank you for the work you do and the opportunity you give us, but please
don't do it!
The details are Lego, the little things are Lego and they make the difference
in our fantastic world.
Thank you
Regards
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | waltzking | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 01:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| There seem to be 4 sides here.
1. Buyers who DON’T care about the carefully documented LEGO sets, parts and
their history.
2. Buyers who DO care about the carefully documented LEGO sets, parts and their
history.
3. Sellers who DON’T care about the carefully documented LEGO sets, parts and
their history.
4. Sellers who DO care about the carefully documented LEGO sets, parts and their
history.
(Need I also mention lack of care for the community, including the founder, Daniel
Jezek, that have done an unfathomably time-consuming labor of love to log it
all and even bring us to this point in LEGO history?)
Clearly I show my colors here as one in the 4th group via this post, but it’s
the honest truth. We care or we don’t care. And honestly that’s okay. We’re
different, and we all need to be…like LEGO parts, it’s what makes the world unique.
But…
When we don’t allow for “variance” (pun intended) we destroy creativity forcing
all bricks to fit “one mold” (pun also intended). Since when do we celebrate
a new release of a tub of Classic bricks over the latest AFOL inspired design?
It’s insanity to even consider it as a user of this site.
But more to the original point I ask…
When has a non-variant caring buyer annoyed or troubled a seller when they were
shipped random variants of parts? Never.
When has a non-variant caring seller annoyed or troubled a buyer when they shipped
them random variants of parts? Quite often actually.
(And clearly likeminded seller/buyer combos don’t have these issues either.)
So we see three of the above categories are acceptable and have no harm caused
in their action/viewpoint, but one is not acceptable really. That’s #3. As a
seller you provide a SERVICE, it’s not the buyer who should serve you and just
be expected to be happy with whatever you send them. So when you post to say
these changes are good from a seller standpoint, you undermine the very thing
you (hopefully) strive to be…a reliable seller of the brick.
Granted variants can be hard, but nothing worth having comes easy. It’s why selling
LEGO is not cut out for everyone. Removing the option to differentiate though
(and truthfully that’s is what the changes do…even if a seller can add a comment,
as it is NOT sortable in wanted lists, auto-shop, etc. still…) and disallowing
us variant caring seller to list the variants in an actual entry of the catalog
defining these regularly buyer-requested variants, is in reality serving no one
but yourself. (As the above points clarify.)
In my option to post in support of these changes as a seller is an utterly selfish
and telling aspect of seller integrity and intent behind being a seller here
at all. Pure and simple profit. Profit is good, don’t get me wrong. And yes,
this site allows selling as PART of its services. But far beyond the selling
aspect it is most notable for its unparalleled catalog documenting LEGO history,
piece by piece. It’s BECAUSE of this that we can then sell these documented morsels
of history one-by-one. So how can any AFOL (or in some cases ASOLFP…Adult Seller
of LEGO for Profits) stand in favor of deleting the communities hard work and
these valuably document aspects of the data and history of the evolution of the
LEGO brick…just to make selling a few parts easier? It’s absolute insanity!
Never in history has the mantra “provide inferior service, make happier buyers!”
worked as a business model. So in reality the one being pushed here is “prove
inferior service, sell more, and care less about the result or buyer.” This
change isn’t about happier buyers, or “easier” shopping. It’s about sales at
the cost of quality. Again, who does this benefit? And is that really what this
site or you as a seller are all about? I surely hope not.
If as a seller you can’t take the time to sort variants and be of service to
this community of avid AFOLs who are also buyers, you should probably just find
a real job. Don’t vote to take away the “rights” of the rest of us for your “ease
of use” making a buck. You lose many of us as buyers thinking you’re making life
and profits easier on yourself when you say this. It only makes it harder for
us all to remove options like this. I mean imagine shopping Macy’s and not being
allowed to pick shirt styles anymore. I’m sure that will make posting product
easier…and sales better. 
And for all you dedicated and LEGO history loving buyers, go ahead and bookmark
our store A *Deal* 4 U. We’ll list the variants as much as possible, as
we’ve done since day one (over 18 years ago), where you can shop the true history
of the Lego brick as your convenience.
With great fervor,
Waltzking
(End rant)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 03:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, waltzking writes:
| | There seem to be 4 sides here.
1. Buyers who DON’T care about the carefully documented LEGO sets, parts and
their history.
2. Buyers who DO care about the carefully documented LEGO sets, parts and their
history.
3. Sellers who DON’T care about the carefully documented LEGO sets, parts and
their history.
4. Sellers who DO care about the carefully documented LEGO sets, parts and their
history.
|
That is overly simplistic. There are more sides than that. There are people that
don't buy or sell here, not in any side. There are also people that buy and
sell here that don't fit in any one side.
Then there are buyers, sellers, buyers and sellers and neither buyer nor sellers
that care about carefully documented sets, parts and their history but not to
the current level of detail, but then there are the same groups that want even
more detail as there are many variants that BL doesn't recognize. There are
also people that want all variants of minifigures to be recognised where there
is a head stud difference and not just the variant found by the person that first
inventories it.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | zpiotrak | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 02:11 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Is it possible to make an option on frontend not to care about molds instead
of messing with database? This is the only way not to hurt anyone.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | JimNoBrick | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 06:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Please DO NOT! Or leave some option left to check.
I know that many sellers and buyers do not distinguish this, but as it turns
out, when rebuilding old sets, it makes a difference. This also very often affects
the price and now, as buyers, we will spend more money to "find" the
right variant or waste time to asking sellers.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | goozle | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 07:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This change is horrendous for both buyers and sellers. It's also antithetical
to the founding of BL as a hobbyist site that catalogs LEGO, not to mention erasing
all the work put in by those hobbyists for decades. This "problem" was
solved by the introduction of the undetermined part type, removing and merging
variants is a complete and utter misstep.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Utter | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 08:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As a buyer who enjoys restoring old sets, I would prefer you not to do this.
I think it's important to restore sets with the proper pieces, as to preserve
them for the future.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | reidstep | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 10:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
This move is solely to benefit LEGO when they become the primary seller of parts
on BrickLink and aren't able to supply order molds that people want, directing
all want lists to LEGO owned BL stores and bypassing all used part sellers.
If its truly about the seller, make "undetermined" the primary listing
and leave all of the mold variant in place for those that want a specific mold.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | BrickieSixx | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 11:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| One thing is certain, the motivations are not for the good of the actual users
of Bricklink, if TLG implements this change and others like it in the future
despite the overwhelming majority of feedback being extremely opposed to this
change. At BEST it is extreme hubris to think they know what's best over
the collective will of BL buyers and sellers. Shameful.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Toypop | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 12:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is a horrible idea for used lego sellers (the people it is supposed to help),
and collectors alike.
Please reconsider this action, as I belive it will drive people to other sites
like brick owl, where they can buy the parts they actually want for their old
sets.
Coming from a used lego seller myself, it's not a big deal to differciate
part variants. In fact I think it's pretty important so my customers can
get exactly what they want for sets they may have had when they were kids. The
history of lego is important to a lot of people, and this will be writing over
decades of hard archival work.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Mozzas_Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 13:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The point of Bricklink is to find the part you require, not take a chance on
whether the item you order is the one you want. Essentially, if Lego has made
a variant, then that is how it should be listed / sold as. How would you feel
if you ordered a cheeseburger and and got a vegan burger?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Mozzas_Bricks writes:
| | The point of Bricklink is to find the part you require, not take a chance on
whether the item you order is the one you want. Essentially, if Lego has made
a variant, then that is how it should be listed / sold as.
How would you feel if you ordered a cheeseburger and and got a vegan burger?
|
A closer comparison here would be that you've ordered a cheeseburger made
with British beef and got one made with Irish beef hence Bricklink considers
these minor variants not to have any specific functional difference to warrant
having their own entry
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, Mozzas_Bricks writes:
| | The point of Bricklink is to find the part you require, not take a chance on
whether the item you order is the one you want. Essentially, if Lego has made
a variant, then that is how it should be listed / sold as.
How would you feel if you ordered a cheeseburger and and got a vegan burger?
|
A closer comparison here would be that you've ordered a cheeseburger made
with British beef and got one made with Irish beef hence Bricklink considers
these minor variants not to have any specific functional difference to warrant
having their own entry
|
OK, you go to a restaurant that always has a British Beef Burger on the menu.
People that don't care and people that care order it. Then they change it
to just "beef burger" for no reason other than most people who order
it don't typically care where the beef comes from. Obviously, those people
will still order it. But the people who were ordering it just because it's
British beef will be unhappy and probably go somewhere else to get it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, Mozzas_Bricks writes:
| | The point of Bricklink is to find the part you require, not take a chance on
whether the item you order is the one you want. Essentially, if Lego has made
a variant, then that is how it should be listed / sold as.
How would you feel if you ordered a cheeseburger and and got a vegan burger?
|
A closer comparison here would be that you've ordered a cheeseburger made
with British beef and got one made with Irish beef hence Bricklink considers
these minor variants not to have any specific functional difference to warrant
having their own entry
|
OK, you go to a restaurant that always has a British Beef Burger on the menu.
People that don't care and people that care order it. Then they change it
to just "beef burger" for no reason other than most people who order
it don't typically care where the beef comes from. Obviously, those people
will still order it. But the people who were ordering it just because it's
British beef will be unhappy and probably go somewhere else to get it.
|
Yes maybe if they are ultra particular, But most people aren't and the will
settle for either and I expect BL's thought process surrounding how they
now handle these minor variants mirrors this
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Yes maybe if they are ultra particular, But most people aren't and the will
settle for either and I expect BL's thought process surrounding how they
now handle these minor variants mirrors this
|
If things were settled by "most people think" then no progress would
have ever been made in the history of humanity. Fewer do care, we agree there,
but their interests have made BL the #1 source for completing vintage sets for
anyone who cares or comes to care, present and future.
I hear there's a peculiar piquancy to British beef that just can't be
compared.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | […]
I hear there's a peculiar piquancy to British beef that just can't be
compared.
|
That’s the mint sauce.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Mint sauce on a beef burger, not for me.
On most other things, great.
Don’t knock mint sauce, it’s one of my favourites, more so than mustard.
Now I want a roast, lamb, vegetables and mashed potato all smothered in a meaty
gravy and a strong mint sauce, nothing better.
Yes, I know, I’m English and not a food snob.
In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | […]
I hear there's a peculiar piquancy to British beef that just can't be
compared.
|
That’s the mint sauce.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Mint sauce on a beef burger, not for me.
On most other things, great.
Don’t knock mint sauce, it’s one of my favourites, more so than mustard.
Now I want a roast, lamb, vegetables and mashed potato all smothered in a meaty
gravy and a strong mint sauce, nothing better.
Yes, I know, I’m English and not a food snob.
|
That came from Asterix in Britain. It’s where I got all my knowledge about you,
Brits
A few known facts:
— the Brits boil their meat and eat it with a mint sauce,
— at 5pm, they drink hot water with a drop of milk,
— their taylor is rich.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:24 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:25 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, Mozzas_Bricks writes:
| | The point of Bricklink is to find the part you require, not take a chance on
whether the item you order is the one you want. Essentially, if Lego has made
a variant, then that is how it should be listed / sold as.
How would you feel if you ordered a cheeseburger and and got a vegan burger?
|
A closer comparison here would be that you've ordered a cheeseburger made
with British beef and got one made with Irish beef hence Bricklink considers
these minor variants not to have any specific functional difference to warrant
having their own entry
|
OK, you go to a restaurant that always has a British Beef Burger on the menu.
People that don't care and people that care order it. Then they change it
to just "beef burger" for no reason other than most people who order
it don't typically care where the beef comes from. Obviously, those people
will still order it. But the people who were ordering it just because it's
British beef will be unhappy and probably go somewhere else to get it.
|
Somewhere it's a good analogy?
With half a Million members I guess BrickLink wants to sell Beef Burgers DOT.
Which is what 99.99% of Mac Do (and even better) burgers shops sell and buyers
want.
Just Beef Burger.
While this, the one who really are fond of specifically "Irish Beef Burger
Rubbed With Beer" can (or hope to) get what they want if some specialized
sellers advertise their Beef Burgers as it.
But again, the far far far majority wish regular ones; which is BrickLink is
trying to simplify here.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:46 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| so what you're saying is, The Forum is going to continue to be flooded with
this thread / subject for at least 3 more months....
awesome
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Pluribus7158 | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is by far the worst idea I've seen on here. The Bricklink catalogue
IS Bricklink. Changing it in such a fundamental way will ruin what many love
about it.
A change this big should be put to a member vote, not just "I'm admin
and this is what I'm doing".
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:17 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | A change this big should be put to a member vote, not just "I'm admin
and this is what I'm doing".
|
LEGO company and BrickLink company have decided this.
Tens and tens of people have analyzed this, had meetings using worldwide stats
of sales.
Admin is just an employee - and kind enough to read and reply.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | A change this big should be put to a member vote, not just "I'm admin
and this is what I'm doing".
|
LEGO company and BrickLink company have decided this.
Tens and tens of people have analyzed this, had meetings using worldwide stats
of sales.
Admin is just an employee - and kind enough to read and reply.
|
Could have still been pitched to use as a member vote. Or find some other middle
ground to reach. One that might even had allowed the part variants to remain.
There has certainly been quite a few suggestions of how to do that in here.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Admin is just an employee - and kind enough to read and reply.
|
+1 I highly doubt Admin_Russel thought of, proposed, encouraged, and convinced
the higher ups to do this (even if he supports it). thankfully he is able to
respond to most questions and make things a bit better for everyone. Thankyou!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 17:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Pluribus7158 writes:
| | This is by far the worst idea I've seen on here. The Bricklink catalogue
IS Bricklink. Changing it in such a fundamental way will ruin what many love
about it.
A change this big should be put to a member vote, not just "I'm admin
and this is what I'm doing".
|
BrickLink is more than just the catalog. It is also the marketplace, Studio,
the designer programs, and the forum.
But yes, I agree, many people value BrickLink because of its catalog and are
upset about the change.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 03:56 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | A change this big should be put to a member vote, not just "I'm admin
and this is what I'm doing".
|
When it comes to their software, we are users not members.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | erickrarick | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is unwanted and misguided. It will be very frustrating if I think I'm
buying modern Lego pieces but then a seller sends an older variant.
Similarly it will make it difficult for people who want to buy replacements for
pieces in vintage sets.
Don't do this
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ButchBricks | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 18:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
This is a poor idea! As a seller, even just with the pieces listed and affected
by this change, the potential exists for miscommunication and the delivery of
incorrect parts. There are no real downsides to keeping these variants the way
they are, from a usability perspective. Please reconsider this damaging and backwards
action!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bmitchel1976 | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 03:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I don't get why this is being done. The old "if it ain't broke don't
fix it" applys here. If we all of a sudden start listing multiple parts
of the same types with different comments and prices, this is going to affect
things like "last 6 months sales" etc and will be out quite a lot. Hard
to price some of these older rare pieces that people are after.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mego2k3 | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 07:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Good morning
I trying to update my store, deleting the 3747a and 3747b will remain only the
2752 as a usefull part number, but it not has the green color listed, how we
have to manage an issue like this?
Thank you
Regards
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mego2k3 writes:
| | Good morning
I trying to update my store, deleting the 3747a and 3747b will remain only the
2752 as a usefull part number, but it not has the green color listed, how we
have to manage an issue like this?
Thank you
Regards
|
It isn't clear to me that 3747a and 3747b will both be merged to 2752.
Where did you get that info?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | lms03 | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 08:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is the absolute worst thing ever I really hope this doesn’t happen for several
reasons. 1 if I’m putting together an older set I’d like to have an older part
and 2 some parts have major differences. Please don’t merge the parts. In Catalog,
Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | TheRealTBOC | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 11:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'm against this. I understand wanting to make listings easier for sellers
or people making lists, but it undermines one of the massive strengths of Bricklink
- that it is a catalog of LEGO pieces, and there are in fact very important mold
variances. I know many people consider these small changes, but understand that
if Bricklink erases this knowledge - it may very well be lost. Bricklink and
errors in it's catalog have a widespread effect on the understanding of what
parts existed when. I dislike this precedent, and sellers are already able to
refuse to distinguish between variants. No reason to simplify a database - it
should account for variations!
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | monnikje | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 12:14 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I can understand that it might help a seller, but for me as a buyer I really
hate these dumbing downs. This might be a slippery slope, and before you know
it, you must contact sellers all the time if you are looking for specific variations.
I have no problem with copy-pasting the long descriptions that accompany the
different variations. So please, don't go this way, or at least poll the
community if this is something that people want.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | The_Boyz_Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 12:31 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | brick_fleet | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 16:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| this is a terrible idea, these parts that are getting merged have functional
differences. This will adversely affect both buyers and sellers on the platform.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | MatsuGohei | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 12:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This does not make any sense; it will make impossible to know the original pieces
of older sets.
How can I complete an older set for me or to sale if I don’t have any clue, after
the merge, of the original Lego pieces?
Common, STOP this nonsense until you find an alternative.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, MatsuGohei writes:
| | This does not make any sense; it will make impossible to know the original pieces
of older sets.
How can I complete an older set for me or to sale if I don’t have any clue, after
the merge, of the original Lego pieces?
|
Well if you don't have a clue which variant you need, then why would it matter
so long as the part works.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WerferOfFlammen | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 14:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I've never commented on proposed changes here, but I wanted to echo my extreme
disappointment with this change. As a passionate Lego fan, enthusiast of complete
historical database records, and someone that *really* cares about variations
and detail when it comes to highly detailed and consistent builds, this is just...
so upsetting. It really feels like a loss, not much else to say. I felt similarly
when bricklink removed all custom and modified parts listings, but I understood
why it happened during it's official acquisition at the time, even if I think
it damaged the overall value of the community.
I can understand how it would make things easier on sellers listed large batches
of pieces, but it opens the door up for for even more mixups and mismatched lots
than the existing system. Variations are annoying to deal with, but at the end
of the day, this is a detail-oriented hobby. And hearing that even more part
variations might be consolidated in the future makes me very sad.
I work in software engineering, and have always had a passing interest in the
systems you have behind the scenes. I'm sure there are numerous challenges
to face, and ways that have been discussed on how to make this the best of both
worlds, but the current proposed changes seem like a pretty blunt approach.
Sounds like the changes are planned regardless, but I just wanted to voice my
sense of loss on the matter. Good luck to everyone regardless.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | W.Ford | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 05:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I am agains this change, I collect predominantly vintage sets, and find the bricklink
catalogue incredibly valuable in ensuring the accuracy of my sets. Any merging
of variants will detract from this.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Duq | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
|
...
| | This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
If you want to make some useful updates to the database, how about renaming liftarms
to beams? Or making sure "Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs" (41740)
and "Tile, Modified 2 x 2 with Studs on Edge" (33909) are in the same
category?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 19:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Duq writes:
| | So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
If this and its follow up thread is anything to go by, the Rusell does what the
Rusell wants is the take away. I don't understand fully why but its your
normal case of when an admin has too much power.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 19:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | In Catalog, Duq writes:
| | So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
If this and its follow up thread is anything to go by, the Rusell does what the
Rusell wants is the take away. I don't understand fully why but its your
normal case of when an admin has too much power.
|
99% sure this is not happening because of Admin Russell. it was likely just a
"order" from the higher-ups which he is in charge of presenting
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 20:14 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | In Catalog, Duq writes:
| | So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
If this and its follow up thread is anything to go by, the Rusell does what the
Rusell wants is the take away. I don't understand fully why but its your
normal case of when an admin has too much power.
|
99% sure this is not happening because of Admin Russell. it was likely just a
"order" from the higher-ups which he is in charge of presenting
|
You're right, of course!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 23:37 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 00:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | I wish they would just be transparent about their true intentions instead of
using sellers as an excuse; if they were forced to do this by the higher-ups,
then just say so instead of dancing around the topic & acting as if our input
matters (when it clearly doesn't)
|
Conspiracy theories aside, maybe they are being transparent about their true
intentions.
| | If you haven't noticed, the admins have largely ignored the complaints and
are essentially acting as if none of it exists, there's been no real remedy
to the situation outside of letting people yell into the void until it's
forced through once February comes around :/
|
The original list was tweaked, they haven't been convinced about the rest.
And?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 20:11 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 05:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | In Catalog, Duq writes:
| | So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
If this and its follow up thread is anything to go by, the Rusell does what the
Rusell wants is the take away. I don't understand fully why but its your
normal case of when an admin has too much power.
|
I'm sorry but I think we all should be VERY grateful to Admin_Russell for
taking the time to read all posts, seeing uninformed and uninformative youtube
videos and bothering to reply even to snarky comments, when he is being attacked.
It must be exhausting! I, for one, have a lot of admiration and appreciation
for his thick skin and the dedication to BrickLink.
People complain that LEGO/BrickLink doesn't communicate. Well, when they
do communicate, they have all the names to go by.
I wouldn't be surprise if they didn't communicate so much next time.
Oh well.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 06:25 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 06:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
I'm sorry but I think we all should be VERY grateful to Admin_Russell for
taking the time to read all posts, seeing uninformed and uninformative youtube
videos and bothering to reply even to snarky comments, when he is being attacked.
I'll explain why I made such a remark because it seems we don't see
eye to eye.
Maybe Rusell is being forced to this by higher ups and is just doing the best
of a bad situation. That's fine.
What is not fine is replying to a handful of concerns and ignore everyone else
who have concerns. Start a whole new thread just to try to reframe how people
discuss around this topic. Its not helpful and it doesn't leave people with
concerns
much confidence that they even listen. Rusell can also check how he replies sometimes
alot of his post I've read within and out of context sound a bit arrogant,
dismissive and stubborn.
I don't mind if you or anyone else agrees with him, its ultimately not you
who are left in the dust by the decision of bricklink. They could have just choosen
someone better to communicate with us. Coming from someone who tried at first
to be reapectful in voicing my concerns. However seeing as a lot of people can
voice concerns but non of them are listened to and instead actively been attempted
to
be snuffed out. I don't see how one wouldn't be a bit more on the edge.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 07:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | I don't mind if you or anyone else agrees with him, its ultimately not you
who are left in the dust by the decision of bricklink. They could have just choosen
someone better to communicate with us. Coming from someone who tried at first
to be reapectful in voicing my concerns. However seeing as a lot of people can
voice concerns but non of them are listened to and instead actively been attempted
to
be snuffed out. I don't see how one wouldn't be a bit more on the edge.
|
I don't think it is a question of me or others agreeing with Russell, because
we don't even know his personal opinion on the subject. He is posting as
an Admin and so he is the voice of BrickLink/LEGO administration as far as we're
concerned.
I just think that he is being as diligent and comprehensive as humanly possible,
and deserves our respect and appreciation for that.
Also, I regrettably see a lack of tolerance on this entire thread: When someone
agrees with us, we call it an opinion; when someone disagrees, we call it heresy...
So in the meantime I will play my Ramlosa Kvallar cd and will relish some World
«frame-less nights» fusion
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 09:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Invalidating people who feel unheard usually don't go well. |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 21:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Duq writes:
| | So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
What about the other 1M+ members that didn't even post anything in this thread?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 21:54 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Duq writes:
| |
So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
"Hundreds" of users? I don't think so.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 22:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | In Catalog, Duq writes:
| |
So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
"Hundreds" of users? I don't think so.
|
I know not every post is unique but there were quite a few
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 00:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The photo you attached is misleading. Yes, if you count the mega-thread and the
side threads we're probably at or near 1,000 posts but hundreds of unique
users did not post against this.
In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | In Catalog, Duq writes:
| |
So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
"Hundreds" of users? I don't think so.
|
I know not every post is unique but there were quite a few
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 00:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | The photo you attached is misleading. Yes, if you count the mega-thread and the
side threads we're probably at or near 1,000 posts but hundreds of unique
users did not post against this.
|
That’s why I said
| | | | I know not every post is unique but there were quite a few
|
|
Which means. Yes not every post is unique but there are many. Most likely 100+
unique comments not happy about it
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 01:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | In Catalog, Duq writes:
| |
So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
"Hundreds" of users? I don't think so.
|
I know not every post is unique but there were quite a few
|
along with quite a few dupe accounts most probably!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 01:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | In Catalog, Duq writes:
| |
So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
"Hundreds" of users? I don't think so.
|
I know not every post is unique but there were quite a few
|
along with quite a few dupe accounts most probably!
|
Some may have several accounts but I’d say few/no posts were made by the same
person with different accounts for different posts
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 02:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | In Catalog, Duq writes:
| |
So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
"Hundreds" of users? I don't think so.
|
I know not every post is unique but there were quite a few
|
along with quite a few dupe accounts most probably!
|
Some may have several accounts but I’d say few/no posts were made by the same
person with different accounts for different posts
|
Maybe though some are definitely not commenting with their main accounts which
I find odd especially if they expect to be taken seriously?
Many complain that it will be harder to buy stuff here whilst showing little
indication of ever having used their account for that purpose!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 02:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | In Catalog, Duq writes:
| |
So after week of discussion in which hundreds of users told you what a stupid
idea this is, I assume you're going ahead anyway?
|
"Hundreds" of users? I don't think so.
|
I know not every post is unique but there were quite a few
|
along with quite a few dupe accounts most probably!
|
Some may have several accounts but I’d say few/no posts were made by the same
person with different accounts for different posts
|
Maybe though some are definitely not commenting with their main accounts which
I find odd especially if they expect to be taken seriously?
Many complain that it will be harder to buy stuff here whilst showing little
indication of ever having used their account for that purpose!
|
I’m admit some are peculiar
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 08:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | along with quite a few dupe accounts most probably!
|
Some may have several accounts but I’d say few/no posts were made by the same
person with different accounts for different posts
|
Personnaly - and only from time to time - I use my second account "Nubs_Select"
to post.
Hoping it's OK?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 12:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | | | along with quite a few dupe accounts most probably!
|
Some may have several accounts but I’d say few/no posts were made by the same
person with different accounts for different posts
|
Personnaly - and only from time to time - I use my second account "Nubs_Select"
to post.
Hoping it's OK?
|
(I use this account so I can control all sides! Also this was I can make my main
account look better)
(Totally not since I get bored and want to talk to myself)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 12:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | | | along with quite a few dupe accounts most probably!
|
Some may have several accounts but I’d say few/no posts were made by the same
person with different accounts for different posts
|
Personnaly - and only from time to time - I use my second account "Nubs_Select"
to post.
Hoping it's OK?
|
(I use this account so I can control all sides! Also this was I can make my main
account look better)
(Totally not since I get bored and want to talk to myself)
|
Typo in name: "Nuts_Select"!
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ZoneBrix | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 19:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| There is decades of die hard fan work in the Bricklink variations part documentation.
Deleting and merging lots of them just to please dumb users or lazy clueless
scalpers is just insane. Mr Jazek would have been pretty outraged.
Keep in mind that Bricklink is above anything a reference website, not just a
money making transaction tool.
Merging variation of the headlight of your example is, bullseye, a good example
of a really stupid action. Now how can we know wich sets originally contains
slotted variations ???
It would have been better to keep a part number for and "Undertermined type"
entry, and then adding variation A B or C for the real fans. Or an alternate
number like you do recently. With a minimum of admin work, Looking at the "Undetermined
Type" would include all variations like if they were merged, easy for beginners,
but individually visible while selecting the right variation. As for box part
inventory, well, having the choice to see generic contentent or precise variation
would have been a better idea than trashing all this precise and precious knowledge.
As a user, a seller and an AFOL for 18 years, I would prefer to pay an annual
membership and more seller fees in to keep this unique tool precise and accurate.
There is not much hobbies that have such incredible tool to keep track of collectible
informations, and this one is about to slowly die...
Hoping that Brick Howl won't follow this behavior. I don't really like
BH, I haven't really use it since Bricklink was the best. But be sure I'll
take a serious look if we still can find precise and accurate variation information
that we won't have it here anymore.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Brickspert_AU | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 20:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I've taken some time to gather my thoughts about this before sharing.
I think it's going to happen no matter what. That being said there are definitely
some better ways to do it rather than deleting/merging part/mold variations.
If there was a note added to the piece in the notes section stating the different
varients and what makes them different and their associated part numbers, and
an image of each varient in the images section highlighting the differences,
for those who care about that.
An alternative, which I've seen others suggest is something like a tick/check
box system or a order of preference system for the varients and keep the listing
of each of the varients so they can still be listed individually. As well as
being easy to find for those who care/want/need that specific version of the
piece.
The system would have an option for "I don't care/I don't know".
I find myself of the fence about this, in some ways I can see the benefit of
it (quicker and easier to list used pieces, and easier to buy the wanted amount
of a piece), both as a buyer and seller, at the same time I can see the negatives
(harder to sell older/discontinued varients and harder to find them too).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Brickspert_AU | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 04:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I should also add that I think a community vote for each merge/deletion should
take place, that's probably the fairest way to do it, but that's just
me.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 06:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Brickspert_AU writes:
| | I should also add that I think a community vote for each merge/deletion should
take place, that's probably the fairest way to do it, but that's just
me.
|
Seeing how this thread went, nothing could be done.
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 06:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickspert_AU writes:
| | I should also add that I think a community vote for each merge/deletion should
take place, that's probably the fairest way to do it, but that's just
me.
|
Seeing how this thread went, nothing could be done.
Niek.
|
Is it causality your post was the one that made this beat the longest thread?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450801
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 09:14 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickspert_AU writes:
| | I should also add that I think a community vote for each merge/deletion should
take place, that's probably the fairest way to do it, but that's just
me.
|
Seeing how this thread went, nothing could be done.
Niek.
|
Is it causality your post was the one that made this beat the longest thread?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450801
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | balin | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 03:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| For the record, as a LEGO fan for almost 5 decades and a Bricklink user for over
2 decades I am opposed to any changes that merge pieces such that
A) pieces with sufficiently different different shapes such that they are functionally
different (like minifig torsos with/without supports or maybe the 3 different
versions of 1x2 slope 45s) are no longer distinguishable
and
B) vintage pieces cannot be easily sourced for older sets
and
C) vintage pieces cannot be easily excluded for newer builds.
Michael
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SRvanKlink | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 04:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| After over 700 replies in this thread and having read nearly all of them I still
see some arguments unaddressed:
Bricklink and LEGO do not realise that the whole AFOL community is litterally
built upon the catalog here on Bricklink. The digital Lego world follows this
catalog everywhere, in LDraw, Stud.io, Brickset, Rebrickable, Brickstore, Brickognize,
Brickowl, Brickscout, syncing tools, all of it. Adjusting the catalog means turning
the AFOL world upside down. Moreover, from the community, the Bricklink catalog
is seen as a Bible, a Lego-Bible that millions of enthusiasts rely on. As AFOL
community and platform we're able to manoeuvre this holy book through time,
new parts and a changing world. LEGO in 2019 has committed itself as keeper of
the Book and should act accordingly. Adjustments need to be made here and there
but merging part variants as proposed is complete nonsense. It would be like
deleting half the Bible as a lot of the texts might have the same origin. However
there have always been gaps and questions about inventories from the past, the
community hobbies on bravely and determined to come as close as it can.
One may not just delete history. I hate to make the comparison nor do I want
to state quotes from Orwell but anyone in power or he who wants to gain it benefits
from deleting history.
In a way I understand the problems Bricklink is facing regarding the marketplace,
but we must see the catalog and the marketplace as two entirely different things.
The real problem lies in how the marketplace approaches the catalog. That problem
should be solved in the marketplace. This oppinion has been shared before several
times. I strongly feel the reluctance or incapability behind the scenes to maintain
a very important catalog in the way it has always been. Driven by sales and money
regardless the social importance.
About social importance: The average AFOL seeks in Lego a world they can not
find in real life. We live in a fast spinning world with a lot of unpleasant
changes where people need to draw back from. This might often be just for relaxation
but in a lot of cases people really need this to simply function in the most
basical ways inside and oustide their homes. I don't mean people with authistic
struggles in the first place but the masses who wouldn't personally affirm
it. This group of millions find a solid, vast and essential foundation in the
Bricklink catalog, not for the hobby but to function as individual. Only by releasing
the intitial posts in the two threads we have now, their world has been shaking
on its foundations. Many tears have flood and countless hours whithout sleep
have passed over this issue already. Initiating the proposed changes will destroy
worlds.
Whitin Bricklink and LEGO the consequenses of the proposed are fully underestimated.
I don't wander through the BL forum too often nor do I contribute in all
what goes around here, but coincidentally found the initial message right after
posting. It has had my mind for weeks now, even when I should be asleep. As a
seller who seeks to make full distinguishments in part and mold variaties I will
be able to continue doing this nonetheless, as I've some experience in using
the comments field, like many other sellers have. For myself, I'll find my
way through it anyway, but after being in doubt a long time whether to share
my thoughts, well, here it is. Please know a lot of users don't or can't.
Sjors van Klink, Netherlands
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 08:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SRvanKlink writes:
| | After over 700 replies in this thread and having read nearly all of them I still
see some arguments unaddressed:
Bricklink and LEGO do not realise that the whole AFOL community is litterally
built upon the catalog here on Bricklink. The digital Lego world follows this
catalog everywhere, in LDraw, Stud.io, Brickset, Rebrickable, Brickstore, Brickognize,
Brickowl, Brickscout, syncing tools, all of it. Adjusting the catalog means turning
the AFOL world upside down. Moreover, from the community, the Bricklink catalog
is seen as a Bible, a Lego-Bible that millions of enthusiasts rely on. As AFOL
community and platform we're able to manoeuvre this holy book through time,
new parts and a changing world. LEGO in 2019 has committed itself as keeper of
the Book and should act accordingly. Adjustments need to be made here and there
but merging part variants as proposed is complete nonsense. It would be like
deleting half the Bible as a lot of the texts might have the same origin. However
there have always been gaps and questions about inventories from the past, the
community hobbies on bravely and determined to come as close as it can.
|
I think it is important to remember that Bricklink was created to be a marketplace
to buy and sell LEGO. It was not created to be a bible or a reference guide;
that is just a side effect. And it is a problem that too many see Bricklink as
a Bible; many take it too literally, and forget that it is full of errors, or
that many sets and minifigs were produced with several part variants. Lots of
those are not reflected in the catalogue.
I agree with all the changes that has been planned now, and I hope that more
variants are being merged in the future.
Helge
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 09:11 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| |
I think it is important to remember that Bricklink was created to be a marketplace
to buy and sell LEGO. It was not created to be a bible or a reference guide;
that is just a side effect. And it is a problem that too many see Bricklink as
a Bible; many take it too literally, and forget that it is full of errors, or
that many sets and minifigs were produced with several part variants. Lots of
those are not reflected in the catalogue.
|
Great post. You know this because you have been here a long time as have I. Others
can't be bothered to learn the history. Before eBay forced a name change,
Bricklink was known as BrickBay, which is a play on the eBay name. Yes, ebay,
the online marketplace.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 09:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think this sums up quite well what Daniel wanted from bricklink:
"His philosophy was quite simple: The business aspects would keep BrickLink
running and the AFOL community would profit the most. And, in the end, it was
all about LEGO and the love of the brick." Source: https://www.danjezek.com/bricklink.html
Further more from the same source but from the authors perspective:
"Had he had more time to reflect on what he had built, Dan would have realized
that he had created something unique to the entire LEGO world: a place where
someone could actually find that one piece, or those parts needed to accomplish
that MOC that was just a thought and not yet even a design. It was a place to
find the long discontinued set that now lay at the bottom of a landfill that
was just a distant memory from childhood. It was a catalyst to re-ignite the
fire of respect and legitimacy needed to bring folks out of their “dark ages”
and back to an enjoyment of LEGO, for themselves and to share with their kids,
once again. Dan revolutionized the AFOL movement, probably without even knowing
it. He was literally able to unite a worldwide community with just a click."
Source: https://www.danjezek.com/bricklink.html
Which just clicks with me(pun not intended) because I think this is what people
think of when they think bricklink its not just the selling its the sentiment
of the site that matters and people rightfully fell like this update threatens
this sentiment.
Bricklink isn't just the selling its the community and contributions of said
community that truly matters. Something this update shamefully wants to undermind
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 09:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | I think this sums up quite well what Daniel wanted from bricklink
|
You know nothing, Jon Snow.
Daniel built from scratch a way to make sellers and buyers to have transactions.
That's the definition of a Marketplace.
That's it.
The fact BrickLink Catalog has become, progressively, the best of the World is
"a side effect", not the reason.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 09:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | I think this sums up quite well what Daniel wanted from bricklink
|
You know nothing, Jon Snow.
Daniel built from scratch a way to make sellers and buyers to have transactions.
That's the definition of a Marketplace.
That's it.
The fact BrickLink Catalog has become, progressively, the best of the World is
"a side effect", not the reason.
|
You said it better than me; and with less words too
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 12:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | I think this sums up quite well what Daniel wanted from bricklink
|
You know nothing, Jon Snow.
Daniel built from scratch a way to make sellers and buyers to have transactions.
That's the definition of a Marketplace.
That's it.
The fact BrickLink Catalog has become, progressively, the best of the World is
"a side effect", not the reason.
|
You said it better than me; and with less words too
|
Maybe, but I'm impressed you talked with Dan even before BrickBay's birth!
Sure I see your 2000 profile and your shop ID 447 - wow that only in remarkable.
Thanks for staying with us, Helge!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | You said it better than me; and with less words too
|
Maybe, but I'm impressed you talked with Dan even before BrickBay's birth!
Sure I see your 2000 profile and your shop ID 447 - wow that only in remarkable.
Thanks for staying with us, Helge!
|
If you look at this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/memberList.asp?v=1
I am number 21 that signed up Somehow I missed the first week of Bricklink
being operational, even if I was waiting for it to open. Still a little unhappy
about that
Mnementh used to call me a noob over that Mnementh (and some others) even
signed up on Bricklink before Dan himself did.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 13:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | | | | You said it better than me; and with less words too
|
Maybe, but I'm impressed you talked with Dan even before BrickBay's birth!
Sure I see your 2000 profile and your shop ID 447 - wow that only in remarkable.
Thanks for staying with us, Helge!
|
If you look at this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/memberList.asp?v=1
I am number 21 that signed up Somehow I missed the first week of Bricklink
being operational, even if I was waiting for it to open. Still a little unhappy
about that
Mnementh used to call me a noob over that Mnementh (and some others) even
signed up on Bricklink before Dan himself did.
|
LOL LOL LOL, yes I can easily see Troy call you a noob, that's really his
genre!
Miss him also in Forum BTW.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 10:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | I think this sums up quite well what Daniel wanted from bricklink
|
You know nothing, Jon Snow.
Daniel built from scratch a way to make sellers and buyers to have transactions.
That's the definition of a Marketplace.
That's it.
The fact BrickLink Catalog has become, progressively, the best of the World is
"a side effect", not the reason.
|
Did you read the quote or not? but I suppose ignorance is bliss. I did not claim
Daniel didn't make a marketplace or that he didn't intend it to be anything
else but I'm highlighting what the second quote says it evolved beyond his
simple intentions.
Also I know that you are reading Helge the same goes for you. I'm not saying
Daniel didn't do something or he intended it to be omething he didn't.
I'm saying that the site has evolved and become more than what he intended.
Reductionism has never been something I'm a fan of.
Some questions to leave you with:
1. Should only Sellers profit from using BrickLink?
2. if yes, why?
3. if no, why is it wrong to allow buyers to find and get the exact items their
looking for?
4. Is it Bricklink purpose to make the entirety of the community conform to their
whims? Why? why not?
5. If Sellers get a priority update to leviate their work, is it then its purpose
to make life harder for buyers and users of the site? Why can't all parties
be considered for this change?
For question number 5: I think it would be quite stupid to implicate that bricklink
is a marketplace and such should focs on the seller. When you yourself brings
up:
In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | Daniel built from scratch a way to make sellers and buyers to have transactions.
That's the definition of a Marketplace.
That's it.
|
Here you put equal weight in buyers and sellers ability to make transactions.
However following this update Buyers will not have an equal ability to make transactions
as what would be a correct transaction is muddied with uncertainty.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 10:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Just because you are a buyer does not mean that you represent the opinion of
all buyers.
It is my opinion that this change will be good for the great majority of Bricklink's
users; sellers and buyers alike. There are for example not many buyers who cares
if they get a 3747a or 3747b. I am also 100% sure that Bricklink is not correct
about which versions that has been used in the different sets, as these were
produced in parallel for quite some time. It will be much easier for both sellers
and buyers if those are merged. That a few hardcore fans prefer to have them
separated, should not dictate how the majority use the site.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 10:46 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 10:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | Just because you are a buyer does not mean that you represent the opinion of
all buyers.
|
That is not what I'm doing, I'm looking for answers to the questions
I provided because as you yourself admits:
In Catalog, helge writes:
| | It is my opinion that this change will be good for the great majority of Bricklink's
users; sellers and buyers alike. There are for example not many buyers who cares
if they get a 3747a or 3747b. I am also 100% sure that Bricklink is not correct
about which versions that has been used in the different sets, as these were
produced in parallel for quite some time. It will be much easier for both sellers
and buyers if those are merged. That a few hardcore fans prefer to have them
separated, should not dictate how the majority use the site.
|
That this change is overall good and will do good. Something I don't agree
with. So I want to understand why this is the case. By asking questions about
your stance on the matter. Nothing more nothing less
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 13:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | Just because you are a buyer does not mean that you represent the opinion of
all buyers.
|
That is not what I'm doing, I'm looking for answers to the questions
I provided because as you yourself admits:
|
What do I admit?? I am stating my opinion, and that opinion is that this change
will be for the good of both sellers and buyers.
| |
In Catalog, helge writes:
| | It is my opinion that this change will be good for the great majority of Bricklink's
users; sellers and buyers alike. There are for example not many buyers who cares
if they get a 3747a or 3747b. I am also 100% sure that Bricklink is not correct
about which versions that has been used in the different sets, as these were
produced in parallel for quite some time. It will be much easier for both sellers
and buyers if those are merged. That a few hardcore fans prefer to have them
separated, should not dictate how the majority use the site.
|
That this change is overall good and will do good. Something I don't agree
with. So I want to understand why this is the case. By asking questions about
your stance on the matter. Nothing more nothing less
|
I have explained what I mean. Why do I need to repeat that? The vast majority
of my buyers do not care for having to select between three different versions
of the same slope that have identical functionality; so why should they be forced
to do so?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| You admitted to it being your opinion that was all I said with that.
Further more I did not ask you to repeat what you said but to answer the questions
I provided in reply 765. No you do not have to answer them now, obviously because
this is slowly devolving into a back and forth where you refuse to read what
is being sent your way.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 13:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | You admitted to it being your opinion that was all I said with that.
|
Off course it is my opinion, I thought I made that quite clear. Unlike you, I
am not trying to present my opinion as a fact.
| | Further more I did not ask you to repeat what you said but to answer the questions
I provided in reply 765. No you do not have to answer them now, obviously because
this is slowly devolving into a back and forth where you refuse to read what
is being sent your way.
|
Why would I have any interest in answering your rather meaningless questions
in detail? My opinion is still that I think this is a change that is for the
good for both sellers and buyers. That should really work well as an answer to
all your questions.
Accusing me of refusing to read what is being sent my way, is just what it is;
a pointless accusation meant to derail the discussion.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 13:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | I have explained what I mean. Why do I need to repeat that? The vast majority
of my buyers do not care for having to select between three different versions
of the same slope that have identical functionality; so why should they be forced
to do so?
|
You can save the hassle to your buyers by stating in your terms that you do not
distinguish older variants. Anyone searching without caring will not have a problem
finding it, if they find multiples, they'll go with whichever one is cheapest
(they may even educate themselves about the variance--how horrid!). But if
they specifically search for the older variant, they should be able to find it.
And not just because some sellers painstakingly went through their inventory
and added a note to each entry this effect, not when BL already does this function
through their inventory as-it-is.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | I have explained what I mean. Why do I need to repeat that? The vast majority
of my buyers do not care for having to select between three different versions
of the same slope that have identical functionality; so why should they be forced
to do so?
|
You can save the hassle to your buyers by stating in your terms that you do not
distinguish older variants. Anyone searching without caring will not have a problem
finding it, if they find multiples, they'll go with whichever one is cheapest
(they may even educate themselves about the variance--how horrid!). But if
they specifically search for the older variant, they should be able to find it.
And not just because some sellers painstakingly went through their inventory
and added a note to each entry this effect, not when BL already does this function
through their inventory as-it-is.
|
I agree with this.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 14:19 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 14:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | | You can save the hassle to your buyers by stating in your terms that you do not
distinguish older variants
|
Yes, I can do that, and I am doing that. And that have led to some extremely
angry responses and bad feedbacks from buyers who did not bother to read neither
the terms nor my description on the part. One buyer angrily accused me of sending
the wrong head for a minifigure, and no matter how much I tried to explain that
the head was correct, and that it was the Bricklink database that was wrong,
I still got a bad feedback for it.
And this for a tiny detail that has no functionality difference, and is not visible
in normal use.
|
This happens with everything, literally, with everything that has variations.
For me, it most frequently happens with Pink and Bright Pink and Brown and Reddish
Brown parts. Many sellers don't see the difference (or don't care to).
Happens almost half the time when I buy. Would you argue to do away with the
distinction between colors just on account that sellers confuse them or that
they can't be inventoried together and save people the hassle?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 14:38 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
This happens with everything, literally, with everything that has variations.
For me, it most frequently happens with Pink and Bright Pink and Brown and Reddish
Brown parts. Many sellers don't see the difference (or don't care to).
Happens almost half the time when I buy. Would you argue to do away with the
distinction between colors just on account that sellers confuse them or that
they can't be inventoried together and save people the hassle?
|
No I would not; difference in colour is a functionality effect.
|
In the same way that slight color variations like old versus new pink/brown seems
functionally different to you (it isn't, though), the parts in question have
functionally different purposes for MANY people.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 18:10 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 20:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
This happens with everything, literally, with everything that has variations.
For me, it most frequently happens with Pink and Bright Pink and Brown and Reddish
Brown parts. Many sellers don't see the difference (or don't care to).
Happens almost half the time when I buy. Would you argue to do away with the
distinction between colors just on account that sellers confuse them or that
they can't be inventoried together and save people the hassle?
|
No I would not; difference in colour is a functionality effect.
|
In the same way that slight color variations like old versus new pink/brown seems
functionally different to you (it isn't, though), the parts in question have
functionally different purposes for MANY people.
|
I am not sure why you want to make this into a discussion about colour, but as
new and old brown are distinctively different, they do off course have functional
reason to be separated. So no, it is not only something that seems like it to
me. I have seen many examples where the difference has been used to good effect.
But I have never met anyone who from a functionality standpoint have said they
need three different entries for Slope, Inverted 33 3 x 2.
And what are the functional differences between 4079 and 4079b? And as these
has been produced in parallel for 20 years, the set inventories with these must
have a lot of errors. Or sets has been released with both version, even if Bricklink
only recognise one of them. Just check the lists of Part Colour Codes for both
versions.
I have not managed to read all the post in this thread, so I may have missed
something, but I have not seen anyone point to a real functional difference on
any of the parts that are on the merge list. Feel free to educate me.
|
There are a ton. From the purpose of hollow studs versus full studs, to changes
in structural integrity, the bottom connections to studs or hollow studs on
the technic bricks, the clicks to stabilize the hinges, etc. The seat issue is
purely cosmetic of course, but they stand out in wrong year sets. The smooth
ones have come back recently but there was a time between early 2000s to recently
that they all had sprue marks. If completing a set the practical use is in other
cases to have the correct part. Color differences are not functional, but cosmetic.
Not unlike a sprue mark on a seat.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 03:22 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 10:14 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| |
No there is not "a ton" of functional difference between the three Slope,
Inverted 33 3 x 2. The studs are the same and the bottom are the same.
|
I didn't say that about this particular difference--although one could
argue the structural integrity is affected. The key difference here would be
to be able to select the one that completes your set.
| |
As for the seat:
4079b; Bricklink says that his part has been in sets every year since 2004
4079: Bricklink says this part have been in use every year since 2004, except
2011-16, 18-19 and 20. If you are trying to recreate a set from say 2009; how
do you know that Bricklink show the correct version? The set may have been produced
with a mix of them, or one version in North America and another in Europe. Or
with one version in the first production run, and the other in the next.
|
You readily grant BL may not be correct. And there are other databases (such
as Rebrickable) to counter-reference. But one way or the other, you complete
the set to the best of your knowledge and buy the part accordingly. What BL is
doing is progressively removing the ability to distinguish and therefore, not
be able to select between them to begin with.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 10:43 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 11:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
Personally I think that if there are real, actual differences in functionality,
variants should not be merged. I do not think there are any in this planned merger.
If there are, please give some examples instead of unsubstantiated claims.
|
I did, so did others, in fact, I understand some changes have been put on hold
due to raised concerns about functional differences. Inside supports have functional
differences for technic bricks. The hinges have functional differences for toughness
in stability and positioning. The non-reinforced sides in 1x2x5 bricks have functional
differences to slide elements inside (as TLG did in Ninjago City). Types of studs
on heads have the functional difference of being able to breathe through them
preventing immediate choking like Bic pen caps (I understand that seen mentions
of also eliminating the full stud variant were incorrect, that would be another
functional difference). Duplo bottoms affect connectivity and are functionally
different.
Other differences are cosmetic, like the seat and the frost looks. Some changes
I don't think would make a big fuzz in the community if they were truly limited
to those (such as the elimination of the "b" numbering for tiles with
grooves since the variant is being kept anyway).
| | And for the majority of the users on Bricklink, that is good thing.
|
You cannot possibly know that hence why I ridiculed this position before.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 11:21 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 11:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | | You cannot possibly know that hence why I ridiculed this position before.
|
Yes, based on 24 years and 32500+ transactions, I can possibly know a lot about
that.
When you start to ridicule others in a discussion, it only serves to undermine
your own arguments. So for your own sake, stop doing that if you want to be taken
seriously.
|
I ridiculed that which is ridiculous. You said it was a "silly question"
if you surveyed your users to this effect. So of course you didn't, of course
you don't "know" what even the users that have shopped from your
store feel about eliminating the variant entries in question. You don't know,
so don't claim you do.
| | Now I thing I have said what I want to say about this matter, and I look forward
to the marge being implemented.
|
So after I politely provided direct answers to your questions you step out of
the conversation? How about you own up to the fact many of these changes are
functional in nature, or sufficiently cosmetic for people to care about them,
and at least clarify that you still don't care?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 13:56 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 14:34 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | the Technic, Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole I have never seen any reason to separate,
and never had one single comment nor question about it from buyers
|
Maybe because--wait for it--it's inventoried separately?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 04:51 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 08:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | the Technic, Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole I have never seen any reason to separate,
and never had one single comment nor question about it from buyers
|
Maybe because--wait for it--it's inventoried separately?
|
No--Wait for it--We have not inventoried them separately
But if you had read what I wrote you would have known that already.
As these have no functional difference it is no point in having separate entries
for them.
|
My god, then it's a non-issue you're talking about and not the proposed
change on the 1x2 technic brick (or you don't know what you're defending).
So because people never complained about a distinction you also don't think
is important, merging these different variants that are distinguished in the
catalog is a good idea? Makes no sense. Again, you don't seem to grasp that
your claims are baseless and resort to non arguments and absurd statements claiming
you know things you cannot possibly know and call people stupid. When an argument
is proposed, you ignore it entirely as you are still doing.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 03:05 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 04:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | | | | | | | | the Technic, Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole I have never seen any reason to separate,
and never had one single comment nor question about it....
|
|
|
|
|
People looking for the variant will still find and buy it elsewhere *if it's
inventoried separately in the catalog*. Not from you if you in your store didn't
separate it. Your choice not to is available now and, as you state, doesn't
impact you. It's because the people that don't care will buy any, including
in your store and, for obvious reasons (they don't care regarding this variant
on on this occasion) they won't say anything. That would be your expected
experience and it *does not speak to the issue at hand*. This is why I said you
can't possibly know how your shoppers feel about these changes. Moving forward,
though, you might get asked and be forced to look, since there will not be a
separate catalog entry for those seeking variants. That's the issue.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 07:50 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 08:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | This is what I wrote that you instead of answering in a normal manner, cut out
of context and ridiculed:
"And for the majority of the users on Bricklink, that is good thing. In my
personal
opinion off course; I do not expect or demand that everybody agree."
|
That's not what I ridiculed. I ridiculed the absurd position to claim knowledge
of where all your buyers would stand on these merges. My exact ridicule was just
to ask if you asked or surveyed them. Not exactly coming at you personally, much
less ridiculing you personally, since the position is just silly and worthy of
ridicule.
| |
And you defended you decision to ridicule me, because you apparently claim that
it is an undeniable truth that it is ridiculous for anyone to have such an opinion.
And for some strange reason you got very offended that I said your attempt at
ridiculing me was silly.
|
Literally all of this never happened. I didn't ridicule you, I ridiculed
a position (not even sure who I addressed in the chat with the survey question!).
Obviously if I keep interacting here I do care about your opinion. It certainly
impacts me and others in the store at the moment.
| | But in regard to the Technic, Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole; I repeat: It is my
opinion based on my experience, and my interaction with buyers and builder over
24 years and 32500+ transactions,
|
Again, you are using experience as a metric for which you cannot apply it.
that the majority of Bricklink user do not
| | need three different entries, and that for that majority it will be better to
have just one entry.
|
And my response was: the fact the entries exist accounts for why no one comes
to you asking for those parts. This is exactly why the position is absurd. People
buying at your store want the current part or don't care. They would not
ask for another entry, and you would not know what their position is if the catalog
is forever devoid of choice to buy the parts you don't put in your store.
This is my OPINOIN; I am not stating this to be an undeniable
| | truth, I do not claim that I know what ALL my buyers think, I do not claim that
this will be better for ALL Bricklink user, or that everybody should agree, and
I am not claiming that it is 100% certain that I am right. It is what I say it
is: MY OPINION. Feel free to disagree, I respect that totally, but there is no
reason to be uncivil and ridicule me over it. And there is no reason to claim
I have said things that I have not even been close to saying.
|
You are plenty uncivil, don't pretend otherwise. You also ignore evidence
and reasonable explanations in exchange for rants like this.
| |
Nothing you have said neither before nor after you started to ridicule me, have
given me any reason to change that opinion. And I see no reason to continuing
this discussion.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 08:54 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 10:08 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 11:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
| | And for the majority of the users on Bricklink, that is good thing.
|
You cannot possibly know that hence why I ridiculed this position before.
|
Yes, based on 24 years and 32500+ transactions, I can possibly know a lot about
that.
When you start to ridicule others in a discussion, it only serves to undermine
your own arguments. So for your own sake, stop doing that if you want to be taken
seriously.
Now I thing I have said what I want to say about this matter, and I look forward
to the marge being implemented.
|
I can confirm all what Helge says here (and elsewhere), based on 17 years, 40000
buyers and 70000 transactions.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
| | And for the majority of the users on Bricklink, that is good thing.
|
You cannot possibly know that hence why I ridiculed this position before.
|
Yes, based on 24 years and 32500+ transactions, I can possibly know a lot about
that.
When you start to ridicule others in a discussion, it only serves to undermine
your own arguments. So for your own sake, stop doing that if you want to be taken
seriously.
Now I thing I have said what I want to say about this matter, and I look forward
to the marge being implemented.
|
I can confirm all what Helge says here (and elsewhere), based on 17 years, 40000
buyers and 70000 transactions.
|
Oh wow, you did survey all those users?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 11:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
| | And for the majority of the users on Bricklink, that is good thing.
|
You cannot possibly know that hence why I ridiculed this position before.
|
Yes, based on 24 years and 32500+ transactions, I can possibly know a lot about
that.
When you start to ridicule others in a discussion, it only serves to undermine
your own arguments. So for your own sake, stop doing that if you want to be taken
seriously.
Now I thing I have said what I want to say about this matter, and I look forward
to the marge being implemented.
|
I can confirm all what Helge says here (and elsewhere), based on 17 years, 40000
buyers and 70000 transactions.
|
Oh wow, you did survey all those users?
|
Sort of.
Having my experience, I can easily see what's the orders are for (and I've
seen almost all of them), like:
* someone's refilling his workshop,
* building a MOC,
* working on a big project,
* making a series of sets,
* greebling or decorating with Minifig utensils, or minifigures,
* making a mosaic,
* getting a few parts to complete something's missing (recent parts),
* etc
* and the very very very very few, rebuilding old set(s).
The fun part is when 2 or 3 buyers the same week order the same or quite the
same parts; we often detect this, and sometimes guess the new MOC which appeared
on rebrickable or wherever.
Other directly tell us what it is for; like a recent one for a proposal
I'm to stop here, I won't feed the trolls.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
| | And for the majority of the users on Bricklink, that is good thing.
|
You cannot possibly know that hence why I ridiculed this position before.
|
Yes, based on 24 years and 32500+ transactions, I can possibly know a lot about
that.
When you start to ridicule others in a discussion, it only serves to undermine
your own arguments. So for your own sake, stop doing that if you want to be taken
seriously.
Now I thing I have said what I want to say about this matter, and I look forward
to the marge being implemented.
|
I can confirm all what Helge says here (and elsewhere), based on 17 years, 40000
buyers and 70000 transactions.
|
Oh wow, you did survey all those users?
|
Sort of.
Having my experience, I can easily see what's the orders are for (and I've
seen almost all of them), like:
* someone's refilling his workshop,
* building a MOC,
* working on a big project,
* making a series of sets,
* greebling or decorating with Minifig utensils, or minifigures,
* making a mosaic,
* getting a few parts to complete something's missing (recent parts),
* etc
* and the very very very very few, rebuilding old set(s).
The fun part is when 2 or 3 buyers the same week order the same or quite the
same parts; we often detect this, and sometimes guess the new MOC which appeared
on rebrickable or wherever.
Other directly tell us what it is for; like a recent one for a proposal
I'm to stop here, I won't feed the trolls.
|
I'm very obviously not a troll, nor trolling. In all those cases it's
possible they either didn't care about particular variants or did. You simply
cannot know the difference. You would need to know their opinion on merging these
variants now to provide your lengthy history as a seller as evidence that the
majority of people on BL do not care about these merging inventory items. It's
self-evident that you cannot possibly know this, but you are still using your
experience as evidence to that which you cannot prove.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 17:33 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| |
No there is not "a ton" of functional difference between the three Slope,
Inverted 33 3 x 2. The studs are the same and the bottom are the same.
|
I didn't say that about this particular difference--although one could
argue the structural integrity is affected. The key difference here would be
to be able to select the one that completes your set.
|
I particularly asked about the inverted slopes and the seats. Your answer was
that there was a ton on functional differences. Now you admit that there is no
functional difference on these particular parts. So which parts in the planned
merge has "a ton" of functional difference?
Personally I think that if there are real, actual differences in functionality,
variants should not be merged. I do not think there are any in this planned merger.
If there are, please give some examples instead of unsubstantiated claims.
|
There are a number of parts from the original list that have been placed on hold
due to actual differences in functionality.
| | | | You readily grant BL may not be correct. And there are other databases (such
as Rebrickable) to counter-reference. But one way or the other, you complete
the set to the best of your knowledge and buy the part accordingly. What BL is
doing is progressively removing the ability to distinguish and therefore, not
be able to select between them to begin with.
|
And for the majority of the users on Bricklink, that is good thing. In my personal
opinion off course; I do not expect or demand that everybody agree. And I will
not change my mind about that, no matter how times you say I am wrong. I fully
understand that the merge take away features that some BL members like, but it
is not possible to make BL perfect for all.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 13:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | I think this sums up quite well what Daniel wanted from bricklink
|
You know nothing, Jon Snow.
Daniel built from scratch a way to make sellers and buyers to have transactions.
That's the definition of a Marketplace.
That's it.
The fact BrickLink Catalog has become, progressively, the best of the World is
"a side effect", not the reason.
|
This is simply obtuse. A "Marketplace" *of what*? Accurate Lego parts
to make sure buyers seeking those parts receive the correct parts. If the catalog
starts blurring the difference between important distinctions that serve thousands
of customers and sellers alike, then it is undoing the vision of BL regardless
of whether the inventory quality or the transactional convenience is prioritized.
This change negatively impacts both. And does so in a short-sighted way as the
distinctions can only become more important over time and as more distinctions
even may need to be marked as Lego evolves.
The cultural shift toward less information is detrimental no matter which way
you look at it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 09:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | I think this sums up quite well what Daniel wanted from bricklink:
"His philosophy was quite simple: The business aspects would keep BrickLink
running and the AFOL community would profit the most. And, in the end, it was
all about LEGO and the love of the brick." Source: https://www.danjezek.com/bricklink.html
Further more from the same source but from the authors perspective:
"Had he had more time to reflect on what he had built, Dan would have realized
that he had created something unique to the entire LEGO world: a place where
someone could actually find that one piece, or those parts needed to accomplish
that MOC that was just a thought and not yet even a design. It was a place to
find the long discontinued set that now lay at the bottom of a landfill that
was just a distant memory from childhood. It was a catalyst to re-ignite the
fire of respect and legitimacy needed to bring folks out of their “dark ages”
and back to an enjoyment of LEGO, for themselves and to share with their kids,
once again. Dan revolutionized the AFOL movement, probably without even knowing
it. He was literally able to unite a worldwide community with just a click."
Source: https://www.danjezek.com/bricklink.html
Which just clicks with me(pun not intended) because I think this is what people
think of when they think bricklink its not just the selling its the sentiment
of the site that matters and people rightfully fell like this update threatens
this sentiment.
Bricklink isn't just the selling its the community and contributions of said
community that truly matters. Something this update shamefully wants to undermind
|
There is no need to lecture me about what Dan intended to create; I discussed
Bricklink via email with Dan even before Bricklink (then Brickbay) were created.
Nowhere in that conversation did he express any whish to create a "LEGO bible";
it was all about creating a marketplace where LEGO could be bought and sold.
What others later claims was his intention do not interest me much. I had great
respect for Dan, and I am sure he would have been proud of what Bricklink has
become, also as a reference site. But claiming that that was his intention from
the start, is just plain wrong. And claiming that this minor part merge is somehow
shamefully undermining his legacy is just as wrong.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Chris_138 | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| agree 100%
with 10% of parts being differentiate and 90% not, how would you restore an old
set?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickman4you | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 18:34 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I think it is important to remember that Bricklink was created to be a marketplace
to buy and sell LEGO. It was not created to be a bible or a reference guide;
that is just a side effect. And it is a problem that too many see Bricklink as
a Bible; many take it too literally, and forget that it is full of errors, or
that many sets and minifigs were produced with several part variants. Lots of
those are not reflected in the catalogue.
I agree with all the changes that has been planned now, and I hope that more
variants are being merged in the future.
Helge
|
+ ONE
- One of the complaints here is always "PLEASE DON'T CHANGE THIS OR THAT"
- Second complaint is your change broke my whatever, maybe (SYNC Software) which
enables me to sell on other platforms.
- Third is always the site is so "Old and Outdated", when are you going
to make some changes.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | CatCat | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 08:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Shocked to read about this intended change.
This will substantially reduce the value that BrickLink provides to me.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 12:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'm looking at this issue and trying to understand it, and decided to throw
in my two cents.
"For sellers, more variants means extra sorting and extra work while pulling
orders, plus the issues that arise from variant misunderstandings."
This statement in Russell's original announcement is unequivocally true.
Require sellers to manage multiple variants places burdens on the sellers.
First of all, in parting out sets. For many sets, there are alternative variants
for various parts, that the seller needs to manually check, by counting whether
a hinge has seven teeth, or nine, for example. Which variant is in that set
seems like the luck of the draw. And then ensure I keep these visually identical
parts separate in storage.
In fulfilling orders. Heaven forbid I got the wrong stud type on the round bricks,
or the wrong X shape axle hole. then I have to scramble to find or source the
correct part so that the buyer is not upset, but the sad truth is that the buyer
most likely does not actually care about the specific variant, but just picked
the first round brick on the list, or the cheaper one. That is probably true
for a majority of buyers. I'm not too lazy to sort variants, if I have to,
but this is a lot of stress.
Something else I consider is that this issue is going to get larger. In the next
five to ten years, the number of mold changes and variants of parts is going
to keep growing. This is as good a time as any to make decisions about whether
Bricklink will keep adding more and more variants, or whether it will put limitations
on which variants are supported. The sets of today, will be "classics"
in a few years, and some builders will demand that sellers provide the theoretically
"authentic" part. How big will we allow the variant list to grow - without
limit?
My final observation is that the discussion here points to the tension created
by two aspects of Bricklink. On the one end is the wish for Bricklink to be the
definitive Wikipedia of all Lego parts and their history. The other side of the
tension is the idea of Bricklink as a great way to buy and sell lego parts. Although
these two ideas are usually complementary, they also create tension that leads
to the challenge of the current discussion.
The Bricklink catalogue is indeed a great asset to sellers, buyers, and all Lego
hobbyists. But is it reasonable to dedicate so much effort to ensure that the
catalogue is comprehensive in documenting information that the Lego company itself
doesn't care to maintain? Particularly when doing so places serious burdens
on sellers? I truly value the information in the catalogue, but honestly, I am
going to feel relieved when I don't feel obligated to sort out and maintain
separate inventories for all these variant parts.
I will keep my current stock separate, and add comments to listings to help buyers
find variants in my store. But it will be as an experiment to see if they actually
sell.
I can't contribute to the discussion here about the functional differences
in variants. However, in keeping with my former career as an archivist, I will
ask Bricklink to do whatever they can to preserve historical data, somewhere.
It would be a shame if it were to be lost.
That's enough of that.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, calebfishn writes:
[a well-thought-out post clipped]
All this. Thank you for the eloquent dissertation.
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 13:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, calebfishn writes:
Great post.
| | I will keep my current stock separate, and add comments to listings to help buyers
find variants in my store. But it will be as an experiment to see if they actually
sell.
|
That's the dirty little secret: many of these variants are nearly worthless
and do not remotely justify the effort. I added the comments and will keep what
I have separate. Going forward I will not. If/when what I have sells, that's
it for these variants.
| | I can't contribute to the discussion here about the functional differences
in variants. However, in keeping with my former career as an archivist, I will
ask Bricklink to do whatever they can to preserve historical data, somewhere.
It would be a shame if it were to be lost.
|
Admin_Russell posted that the historical data is being kept.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 14:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, calebfishn writes:
| | I'm looking at this issue and trying to understand it, and decided to throw
in my two cents.
"For sellers, more variants means extra sorting and extra work while pulling
orders, plus the issues that arise from variant misunderstandings."
This statement in Russell's original announcement is unequivocally true.
|
No, it's not. Sellers do not currently have to make those distinctions if
they don't want to, they are merely distinctions in the catalog. Sellers
can list all items under the newer variant and state in their terms that they
do not distinguish the older variants. Casual buyers will seek the cheaper, newer
alternatives, but those who care will either buy from a seller that specifies
variance or will ask about the variance to the seller Simple, and exactly as
it happens now. No one is bothered by any of it.
| |
In fulfilling orders. Heaven forbid I got the wrong stud type on the round bricks,
or the wrong X shape axle hole. then I have to scramble to find or source the
correct part so that the buyer is not upset, but the sad truth is that the buyer
most likely does not actually care about the specific variant, but just picked
the first round brick on the list, or the cheaper one. That is probably true
for a majority of buyers. I'm not too lazy to sort variants, if I have to,
but this is a lot of stress.
|
This doesn't make sense. If the buyer doesn't want a particular variant,
there is no issue. When the buyer wants a particular variant, they can find it
precisely because the catalog allows sellers to specify a variant in question.
Given enough time and less and less people bothering with the tedious note-marking
on each inventory item, finding the part you want becomes a huge hassle.
| |
Something else I consider is that this issue is going to get larger. In the next
five to ten years, the number of mold changes and variants of parts is going
to keep growing.
|
All the more reason to maintain variants in the inventory. If we remove the variant
for teeth number in hinges, and then a new hinge comes along with a different
number of teeth that has specific clicks for positioning, for example, the current
culture would mark the variance (*more information*) but the shift in culture
would not ("less information" and someone wanting the new parts could
receive the older parts that do not have the specific clicks or are less stable
when positioned.
| | My final observation is that the discussion here points to the tension created
by two aspects of Bricklink. On the one end is the wish for Bricklink to be the
definitive Wikipedia of all Lego parts and their history. The other side of the
tension is the idea of Bricklink as a great way to buy and sell lego parts. Although
these two ideas are usually complementary, they also create tension that leads
to the challenge of the current discussion.
|
No, there is no tension, precisely because the very buy/sell side needs the site
to offer detailed distinctions on these parts to function well. This shift is
extremely short-sighted, too, because eventually, more and more people will want
to complete sets accurately since, as you hinted, today's sets become tomorrow's
nostalgia. Having a new set with old seats (missing the sprue mark) will be just
as annoying as trying to complete an old set but getting a new seat (with the
sprue mark). That is not a functional difference, but it sure looks different.
| | I will keep my current stock separate, and add comments to listings to help buyers
find variants in my store. But it will be as an experiment to see if they actually
sell.
|
The entire point of this shift in culture is to ensure fewer and fewer people
seek those variants, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Over time, if the
variants are marked, the older molds become more difficult to find and so the
market for those parts would shift. If you remove the variants, you undo the
market forces (exactly what TLG would want in this case, since this shifts everything
to their production molds).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 14:34 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, calebfishn writes:
| | I'm looking at this issue and trying to understand it, and decided to throw
in my two cents.
"For sellers, more variants means extra sorting and extra work while pulling
orders, plus the issues that arise from variant misunderstandings."
This statement in Russell's original announcement is unequivocally true.
|
No, it's not. Sellers do not currently have to make those distinctions if
they don't want to, they are merely distinctions in the catalog. Sellers
can list all items under the newer variant and state in their terms that they
do not distinguish the older variants. Casual buyers will seek the cheaper, newer
alternatives, but those who care will either buy from a seller that specifies
variance or will ask about the variance to the seller Simple, and exactly as
it happens now. No one is bothered by any of it.
| |
In fulfilling orders. Heaven forbid I got the wrong stud type on the round bricks,
or the wrong X shape axle hole. then I have to scramble to find or source the
correct part so that the buyer is not upset, but the sad truth is that the buyer
most likely does not actually care about the specific variant, but just picked
the first round brick on the list, or the cheaper one. That is probably true
for a majority of buyers. I'm not too lazy to sort variants, if I have to,
but this is a lot of stress.
|
This doesn't make sense. If the buyer doesn't want a particular variant,
there is no issue. When the buyer wants a particular variant, they can find it
precisely because the catalog allows sellers to specify a variant in question.
Given enough time and less and less people bothering with the tedious note-marking
on each inventory item, finding the part you want becomes a huge hassle.
| |
Something else I consider is that this issue is going to get larger. In the next
five to ten years, the number of mold changes and variants of parts is going
to keep growing.
|
All the more reason to maintain variants in the inventory. If we remove the variant
for teeth number in hinges, and then a new hinge comes along with a different
number of teeth that has specific clicks for positioning, for example, the current
culture would mark the variance (*more information*) but the shift in culture
would not ("less information" and someone wanting the new parts could
receive the older parts that do not have the specific clicks or are less stable
when positioned.
| | My final observation is that the discussion here points to the tension created
by two aspects of Bricklink. On the one end is the wish for Bricklink to be the
definitive Wikipedia of all Lego parts and their history. The other side of the
tension is the idea of Bricklink as a great way to buy and sell lego parts. Although
these two ideas are usually complementary, they also create tension that leads
to the challenge of the current discussion.
|
No, there is no tension, precisely because the very buy/sell side needs the site
to offer detailed distinctions on these parts to function well. This shift is
extremely short-sighted, too, because eventually, more and more people will want
to complete sets accurately since, as you hinted, today's sets become tomorrow's
nostalgia. Having a new set with old seats (missing the sprue mark) will be just
as annoying as trying to complete an old set but getting a new seat (with the
sprue mark). That is not a functional difference, but it sure looks different.
| | I will keep my current stock separate, and add comments to listings to help buyers
find variants in my store. But it will be as an experiment to see if they actually
sell.
|
The entire point of this shift in culture is to ensure fewer and fewer people
seek those variants, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Over time, if the
variants are marked, the older molds become more difficult to find and so the
market for those parts would shift. If you remove the variants, you undo the
market forces (exactly what TLG would want in this case, since this shifts everything
to their production molds).
|
again 100% agree
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | […]
Having a new set with old seats (missing the sprue mark) will be just
as annoying as trying to complete an old set but getting a new seat (with the
sprue mark).
|
Side note:
Neither the new seat (202?-) nor the old seat (1980-2004) have the sprue mark.
It’s the new-old/old-new seat (2004-202?) that has the sprue mark.
| | […]
The entire point of this shift in culture is to ensure fewer and fewer people
seek those variants, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
|
The opposite is also true.
The slot in headlight bricks was never a real variant, it was just happenstance,
depending on the age of the mould, the factory, the room temperature, the age
of the captain….
But at some point, some people thought it was and decided to create a variant
in the BL catalogue…
And the data in which sets it appeared in was bogus but people still thought
they had to have the variant that was in the inventories.
And if you found the “wrong” variant in your set? Or both variant? Well, you
were wrong… until the evidence was big enough and the variants merged.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 15:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
Side note:
Neither the new seat (202?-) nor the old seat (1980-2004) have the sprue mark.
It’s the new-old/old-new seat (2004-202?) that has the sprue mark.
|
This means that eventually the sprue mark seats will become sought for its color
run for sets made within those 20 years. Unless, of course, we erase this distinction
and suddenly people will be frustrated when they receive the wrong items or can't
find the right items. Again, erasing the distinctions is not helping anyone.
| | | | […]
The entire point of this shift in culture is to ensure fewer and fewer people
seek those variants, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
|
The opposite is also true.
The slot in headlight bricks was never a real variant....
|
There is an argument to be made with this that the variant should still be kept,
just disconnected from sets (i.e. to clarify inventories as desired). If I need
to buy one more headlight brick but get the wrong one, they will not match the
rest, the loss of information doesn't help me. This is similar to the path
that Rebrickable took (although they kept the set links). Since Lego clarified
the facts about this particular part, this is water under the bridge, and I'm
not making the argument that the part needs to be differentiated now. However,
that's not the same as remolded parts (such as hinges or axle holes) that
were actual design improvements by Lego. Studs (whole versus hollow) also have
design and functional differences that should clearly be kept. You can lump the
two types of blocked open studs together on heads for example, but the whole
stud or hollow stud difference is important.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 15:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Again, erasing the distinctions is not helping anyone.
|
Read carefully.
1) It's not about ERASING distinctions.
2) It helps 99.99% of buyers and sellers who don't give a notch about this.
Hoping that helps?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 15:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | Again, erasing the distinctions is not helping anyone.
|
Read carefully.
1) It's not about ERASING distinctions.
2) It helps 99.99% of buyers and sellers who don't give a notch about this.
Hoping that helps?
|
1) It is certainly erasing the distinctions in the inventory. And even more generally
*over time*. If you remove the separate entries all there will be are some pictures
and maybe a small note. This is what has happened on this site with the headlight
bricks. So if I do want a line of headlight bricks with the notch, or am missing
1 out of 2, whatever the case, I'd have to ask as a buyer (burdening the
buyer) or have to add a note as a seller (burdening the seller). We have to reinvent
the distinction because the distinction was ERASED by BL at the inventory level.
2) Absolutely untrue. Anyone who does (or in the future will) seek the variation
will be impacted negatively and not helped at all. Anyone who doesn't "give
a notch" about this already has no problem, so they are not helped in the
least. If I don't care as a buyer I can search for it and pick the cheapest
alternative now. If I don't care as a seller I can state this in my Terms
and simply list the current or latest version of the part now. The erasing of
valuable inventory information does, however, hurt anyone who does "give
a notch" for accuracy.
Hoping that helps?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 15:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | Read carefully.
1) It's not about ERASING distinctions.
2) It helps 99.99% of buyers and sellers who don't give a notch about this.
Hoping that helps?
|
1) It is certainly erasing the distinctions in the inventory.
|
No, sellers are free to add any distinction in description.
| | 2) Absolutely untrue. Anyone who does (or in the future will) seek the variation
will be impacted negatively and not helped at all.
|
Which is 0.01% of buyers.
Do you really LEGO Collectors think you represent the majority of people playing
and building with (recent, or whatever) LEGO parts?
Much respect to you, but you're far off the reality.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 15:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | No, sellers are free to add any distinction in description.
|
Sellers? We are talking about BL. BL is erasing the distinctions and shifting
the burden to sellers and buyers. The only reason to do this is so that, over
time, people only focus on production molds, enhancing their own demand and supplanting
historical demands. This is literally in every way the purposeful erasing of
distinctions.
| | | | 2) Absolutely untrue. Anyone who does (or in the future will) seek the variation
will be impacted negatively and not helped at all.
|
Which is 0.01% of buyers.
|
Ridiculous. This is the BL market we're talking about, not Walmart, tons
of people come here to complete sets or replace old or broken parts. Or buy whole
sets they expect to be correctly inventoried. Shifting the culture toward not
distinguishing variations of parts makes this a bad marketplace to any and all
those people. You could argue maybe 90% of buyers here only look for just minifigures
to begin with (my experience as a seller so far), but among the 10% looking for
sets or parts, a good majority of them will say accuracy is important. Hence
the reaction BL got on this.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 15:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | Which is 0.01% of buyers.
|
Ridiculous. This is the BL market we're talking about, not Walmart, tons
of people come here to complete sets or replace old or broken parts.
|
You're a very few minority, sorry to say.
But MUCH vocal in Forum
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450426
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | | | Which is 0.01% of buyers.
|
Ridiculous. This is the BL market we're talking about, not Walmart, tons
of people come here to complete sets or replace old or broken parts.
|
You're a very few minority, sorry to say.
But MUCH vocal in Forum
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450426
|
Who is to say that man is right? And, either way, is not parting sets back together
honorable enough to maintain a way for people to it? Also, why is the "minority"
a majority in being vocal still? You'd think by now, with two big Youtubers
posting videos on the subject (80,000 views combined), and a Brick Fanatics article,
the "majority" would have come on and voiced their opinion.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | Who is to say that man is right? And, either way, is not parting sets back together
honorable enough to maintain a way for people to it? Also, why is the "minority"
a majority in being vocal still? You'd think by now, with two big Youtubers
posting videos on the subject (80,000 views combined), and a Brick Fanatics article,
the "majority" would have come on and voiced their opinion.
|
The majority doesn't voice their opinion in the forum; they do so in the
marketplace.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | […]
the "majority" would have come on and voiced their opinion.
|
Who cares enough to come and say “yeah”, “okay”, or “whatever”?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Who cares enough to come and say “yeah”, “okay”, or “whatever”?
|
I doubt they would say that. I should think that they would want their opinion
known, at least the sensible ones, so as to ensure that Bricklink isn't affected
by the clamor of a "minority". I have much more respect for people on
the forum defending why they want it to be changed than the rest of the "majority"
who are sitting by and doing nothing, if they exist. Most likely the truth is
that the "majority" don't care one way or the other.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Most likely the truth is
| | that the "majority" don't care one way or the other.
|
And if that is the case, why change what isn't broken?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Most likely the truth is that the "majority" don't care one way or the other.
|
More likely most won't even notice any changes to old variants, let alone
care.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | More likely most won't even notice any changes to old variants, let alone
care.
|
Exactly, so why annoy the people who do care that it not be changed, who seem
to be in the majority, excluding the ones who don't care.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | | | More likely most won't even notice any changes to old variants, let alone
care.
|
Exactly, so why annoy the people who do care that it not be changed, who seem
to be in the majority, excluding the ones who don't care.
|
Many things in life can get changed without us noticing them, but can still improve
how something works (or make it worse).
The proposed merges are very minor and I doubt any casual users will notice or
care, and I doubt any casual users will either benefit or be hindered by them.
Where there is no functional difference such as for the 7/9 hinges, the amount
available going up might be noticeable and nobody is really disadvantaged by
the merge. Whereas where there is a more important difference, there is little
benefit to the masses and it is detrimental to a minority, so hopefully they
won't merge them after reconsidering.
Whereas renaming the tiles to remove the 'with groove' from the name
also probably won't be noticed by many but will give an improvement in that
it frees up characters to use for the description of decorated tiles. So everyone
can benefit from the change whether they notice or care.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:57 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | | | More likely most won't even notice any changes to old variants, let alone
care.
|
Exactly, so why annoy the people who do care that it not be changed, who seem
to be in the majority, excluding the ones who don't care.
|
Many things in life can get changed without us noticing them, but can still improve
how something works (or make it worse).
The proposed merges are very minor and I doubt any casual users will notice or
care, and I doubt any casual users will either benefit or be hindered by them.
Where there is no functional difference such as for the 7/9 hinges, the amount
available going up might be noticeable and nobody is really disadvantaged by
the merge. Whereas where there is a more important difference, there is little
benefit to the masses and it is detrimental to a minority, so hopefully they
won't merge them after reconsidering.
Whereas renaming the tiles to remove the 'with groove' from the name
also probably won't be noticed by many but will give an improvement in that
it frees up characters to use for the description of decorated tiles. So everyone
can benefit from the change whether they notice or care.
|
Fair.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | Who is to say that man is right? And, either way, is not parting sets back together
honorable enough to maintain a way for people to it? Also, why is the "minority"
a majority in being vocal still? You'd think by now, with two big Youtubers
posting videos on the subject (80,000 views combined), and a Brick Fanatics article,
the "majority" would have come on and voiced their opinion.
|
Because 99.99% of buyers don't spend ANY time on BrickLink (think also at
the language barrier: the whole world is english?), neither in Forum or Youtube,
or anywhere. Just see how many post feedbacks.
People buy and use LEGO as it was originally designed: to build, create, have
pleasure, dream - it's what we do since we're 5 yrs old.
So, the majority is in fact completely silent.
See Russell post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451024
We don’t base our decisions on polls because if we did,
the collector community on BrickLink would have their agenda completely wiped
out by the majority who don’t care about picky details.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:16 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | Who is to say that man is right? And, either way, is not parting sets back together
honorable enough to maintain a way for people to it? Also, why is the "minority"
a majority in being vocal still? You'd think by now, with two big Youtubers
posting videos on the subject (80,000 views combined), and a Brick Fanatics article,
the "majority" would have come on and voiced their opinion.
|
Because 99.99% of buyers don't spend ANY time on BrickLink (think also at
the language barrier: the whole world is english?), neither in Forum or Youtube,
or anywhere. Just see how many post feedbacks.
People buy and use LEGO as it was originally designed: to build, create, have
pleasure, dream - it's what we do since we're 5 yrs old.
So, the majority is in fact completely silent.
See Russell post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451024
We don’t base our decisions on polls because if we did,
the collector community on BrickLink would have their agenda completely wiped
out by the majority who don’t care about picky details.
|
I answered this in my next post, which I assume you did not see since you were
composing this.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:23 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I answered this in my next post, which I assume you did not see since you were
composing this.
|
I didn't.
But much more: I don't care.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | I answered this in my next post, which I assume you did not see since you were
composing this.
|
I didn't.
But much more: I don't care.
|
Ah, since you resort to insults, no one's opinion should matter.
Either way, my point from it stands. If the majority of the people don't
care, which plenty of people have said, and there is a minority who cares enough
to try to stop it from changing, why fix what isn't broken, even if there
is an even smaller minority who does want it changed.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:13 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | | | Which is 0.01% of buyers.
|
Ridiculous. This is the BL market we're talking about, not Walmart, tons
of people come here to complete sets or replace old or broken parts.
|
You're a very few minority, sorry to say.
But MUCH vocal in Forum
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450426
|
I will say the same thing about you. The BL market is one for completion and
historic parts, if I want something new I can buy if from Lego.com or Walmart
or Amazon. The few that don't care about the part variations are the minority,
just a loud minority that keep posting over and over again in the forum.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 04:37 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 10:14 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
I will say the same thing about you. The BL market is one for completion and
historic parts, if I want something new I can buy if from Lego.com or Walmart
or Amazon. The few that don't care about the part variations are the minority,
just a loud minority that keep posting over and over again in the forum.
|
This statement is far from reality. I have had 32500 sales here; very few of
them has been from buyers that complete old sets and care about the variants
for that reason. The vast majority of my buyers do not care about the variants
at all; they buy parts to build with.
The large majority that do not care about the part variants do not read the forum,
and if they did, would not bother to comment in this thread.
|
You interviewed each one and asked how they'd use this site if they wanted
to complete an old set?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 10:53 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 13:46 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
I will say the same thing about you. The BL market is one for completion and
historic parts, if I want something new I can buy if from Lego.com or Walmart
or Amazon. The few that don't care about the part variations are the minority,
just a loud minority that keep posting over and over again in the forum.
|
This statement is far from reality. I have had 32500 sales here; very few of
them has been from buyers that complete old sets and care about the variants
for that reason. The vast majority of my buyers do not care about the variants
at all; they buy parts to build with.
The large majority that do not care about the part variants do not read the forum,
and if they did, would not bother to comment in this thread.
|
You interviewed each one and asked how they'd use this site if they wanted
to complete an old set?
|
Silly questions like that does not contribute to the discussion. Why on earth
should I ask a lot of people that clearly have no interest in completing old
sets, how they would have wanted to do that??? And why would I have an interest
in the answer? I have not set up my store to to serve that small niche marked;
I have set up my store to serve builders and minifig collectors. That is working
fine for me, and it will be even better for both me and my buyers after the merge.
|
Thank you for admitting to not knowing where all your buyers stand on this matter
and to having no basis for your claims. I think this discussion can be laid to
rest now. People want these variants this thread speaks for itself.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 14:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Thank you for admitting to not knowing where all your buyers stand on this matter
and to having no basis for your claims. I think this discussion can be laid to
rest now. People want these variants this thread speaks for itself.
|
I have never claimed that I know ALL my buyers wants. You claiming that I have
done so is just a desperate attempt of derailing the discussion. Off course I
have a basis for my claims: 24 years and 32500+ transaction. I know what I am
talking about.
Feel free to say your opinion; do pretend that they are undeniable facts.
NOW I will not answer any more of this as none of you clearly have no interest
in a civil discussion.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 05:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I will say the same thing about you. The BL market is one for completion and
historic parts, if I want something new I can buy if from Lego.com or Walmart
or Amazon.
|
Given how many new sets, minifigures and parts are sold here, that cannot possibly
be true.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 10:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I will say the same thing about you. The BL market is one for completion and
historic parts, if I want something new I can buy if from Lego.com or Walmart
or Amazon.
|
Given how many new sets, minifigures and parts are sold here, that cannot possibly
be true.
|
First, I was doing the inverse of the original argument to highlight the absurdity
of it. But that said, the main marketplace for new parts is not primarily BL.
New parts are sold at Lego.com, and new sets at every retailer in the world.
That's probably well over 99% of all Lego sold, BL constituting a fraction
of 1% of all Lego sold in the world. Granted, BL buyers do come in to purchase
new parts all the time, of course, especially minifigure and other highly desirable
items when the sets are not as desirable. This doesn't change the fact that
BL is primarily set up as an alternative and different from the retailers and
Lego.com in key ways that have historically maintained its own share of the market
as it stands today. So slowly erasing these differences by eliminating historically
relevant variants goes counter this, it will hurt BL, even as it clearly ultimately
benefits TLG.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:20 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | BL is erasing the distinctions and shifting the burden to sellers and buyers.
|
The question is which distinctions matter enough to be reflected in the catalog
and which can be erased. I can understand why BrickLink distinguishes between
Brown and Reddish Brown, or Pink and Bright Pink. But what about Pearl Gold?
Anyone who's used Pearl Gold before knows that there is quite a bit of variation
within this single color. Do these shades deserve their own colors in the BrickLink
catalog? If so, that would create a burden for sellers, who would have to sort
their Pearl Gold parts by shade, and buyers, who would have to specify what shade
they want when ordering.
So, there needs to be some sort of balance. Too many distinctions and it makes
it difficult for buyers and sellers to navigate the catalog. Too few distinctions
and it makes it difficult for buyers to get the pieces they need.
Your posts seem to indicate that you believe all distinctions are important,
but what about the factory or set that a part came from? For parts that have
been produced continuously over a long period of time, do you believe that sellers
should have to specify what decade or year the part was produced?
As it stands, the BrickLink catalog currently forces buyers and sellers to make
a lot of distinctions they simply may not care about.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 19:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | Your posts seem to indicate that you believe all distinctions are important,
but what about the factory or set that a part came from? For parts that have
been produced continuously over a long period of time, do you believe that sellers
should have to specify what decade or year the part was produced?
As it stands, the BrickLink catalog currently forces buyers and sellers to make
a lot of distinctions they simply may not care about.
|
No, that's not what my posts indicate, they indicate these functional and
relevant differences that have already been identified and used countless times
by thousands of users for practical purposes should not be erased.
And no, the distinctions are not forced, you can search and buy whatever is cheapest,
you can specify you don't distinguish the differences as a seller.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 19:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | No, that's not what my posts indicate, they indicate these functional and
relevant differences that have already been identified and used countless times
by thousands of users for practical purposes should not be erased.
|
Thousands of users bought and sold BrickArms products on this site. Does that
mean they should still be in the catalog?
Just because something is already in the catalog doesn't mean it should be
there. "Functional and relevant differences" is subjective.
| | And no, the distinctions are not forced, you can search and buy whatever is cheapest,
|
Which forces buyers to compare different variants to identify which is the cheapest.
| | you can specify you don't distinguish the differences as a seller.
|
But sellers still have to specify a variant when listing parts for sale, and
buyers may complain if the variant they receive doesn't match the listing
(even if the seller stated in their terms that they don't distinguish variants).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 02:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | As it stands, the BrickLink catalog currently forces buyers and sellers to make
a lot of distinctions they simply may not care about.
|
However, it also doesn't force a mountain of others:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelCat.asp?relID=24
Almost 600 and counting that aren't distinguished. In fact, there are actually
more variants that are _not_ distinguished in the catalog than those that are,
so the arguments on both sides of this debate are somewhat overblown.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 10:07 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | However, it also doesn't force a mountain of others:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelCat.asp?relID=24
Almost 600 and counting that aren't distinguished. In fact, there are actually
more variants that are _not_ distinguished in the catalog than those that are,
so the arguments on both sides of this debate are somewhat overblown.
|
The difference is that variants that are distinguished have been used for years
and helped thousands of people. So the debate is about taking out the variants
that have been used for a long time, it's a distraction to bring up others.
Sure, I would, personally, want to evaluate as a community whether a variant
merits its own inventory entry because in some cases (not all/maybe most cases!)
some distinctions affect set completion and builds significantly, either functionally
or cosmetically. But the issue is with the existing, inventoried variants.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 17:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | However, it also doesn't force a mountain of others:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelCat.asp?relID=24
Almost 600 and counting that aren't distinguished. In fact, there are actually
more variants that are _not_ distinguished in the catalog than those that are,
so the arguments on both sides of this debate are somewhat overblown.
|
The difference is that variants that are distinguished have been used for years
and helped thousands of people. So the debate is about taking out the variants
that have been used for a long time, it's a distraction to bring up others.
Sure, I would, personally, want to evaluate as a community whether a variant
merits its own inventory entry because in some cases (not all/maybe most cases!)
some distinctions affect set completion and builds significantly, either functionally
or cosmetically. But the issue is with the existing, inventoried variants.
|
The reason for my post was to show that the site really needs a new way to handle
variants rather than arbitrarily deciding for each user of the site which variants
are important or not because the site has always arbitrarily decided for each
user of the site which variants are important or not.
Championing for or against the changes that are coming does not provide a long-term
solution to make everyone happy. It just shifts unhappiness from one group to
another.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 15:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | No, it's not. Sellers do not currently have to make those distinctions if
they don't want to, they are merely distinctions in the catalog. Sellers
can list all items under the newer variant and state in their terms that they
do not distinguish the older variants. Casual buyers will seek the cheaper, newer
alternatives, but those who care will either buy from a seller that specifies
variance or will ask about the variance to the seller Simple, and exactly as
it happens now. No one is bothered by any of it.
|
Sellers who list parts under the wrong entry risk complaints and negative feedback
from buyers who care about variants, though, even if the seller states in their
store terms that they do not distinguish between different variants.
See, for example, this post from helge, which describes an unhappy buyer that
accused him of sending the wrong head for a minifigure:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451585
I believe this is what Russell is referring to by "issues that arise from
variant misunderstandings".
And this doesn't just apply to sellers that don't distinguish variants
in general, but also sellers that do distinguish variant but are not familiar
with all of the different variants in the catalog, or sellers who list parts
under the wrong variant by mistake or out of ignorance.
So, sellers are forced to choose between either being extra careful when listing
parts for sale in order to ensure that everything is listed under the correct
variant, or being less careful at the risk of listing a part under the wrong
variant and creating potential misunderstandings from buyers seeking specific
variants.
Eliminating some of the more minor variants would at least spare sellers from
being forced to make this choice for the few specific variants that will be eliminated.
| | This doesn't make sense. If the buyer doesn't want a particular variant,
there is no issue. When the buyer wants a particular variant, they can find it
precisely because the catalog allows sellers to specify a variant in question.
Given enough time and less and less people bothering with the tedious note-marking
on each inventory item, finding the part you want becomes a huge hassle.
|
I think what Caleb is saying is that the way the catalog currently works, when
a buyer orders a particular variant of a part, there is no way to tell whether
they chose that specific variant because they need that specific variant, or
because BrickLink forces them to choose a variant.
Unless, of course, the buyer contacts the seller directly, but that is rare.
So, the seller doesn't know whether or not they can substitute another variant
just by looking at the order. They have to either contact the buyer directly,
source the correct variant elsewhere, or send the wrong variant and risk ending
up with an unhappy buyer, as described above.
| | All the more reason to maintain variants in the inventory. If we remove the variant
for teeth number in hinges, and then a new hinge comes along with a different
number of teeth that has specific clicks for positioning, for example, the current
culture would mark the variance (*more information*) but the shift in culture
would not ("less information" and someone wanting the new parts could
receive the older parts that do not have the specific clicks or are less stable
when positioned.
|
This currently happens often when sellers list parts under the wrong variant.
| | No, there is no tension, precisely because the very buy/sell side needs the site
to offer detailed distinctions on these parts to function well.
|
Not necessarily. As a MOC builder, I don't really care about all the minor
adjustments the LEGO Group has made to their molds over the decades.
There needs to be some sort of balance between distinguishing between similar
but different parts, but without going so far as to make buying and selling difficult
for those who are new to the site and those who are not catalog experts. More
detail is not always better.
The way I read Russell's original post, BrickLink is not doing away with
variants entirely. They are simply eliminating some of those that they perceive
to be "minor" or "low-level". Of course, whether or not a
variant is important enough to deserve separate treatment in the catalog is subjective,
but it's not like they're merging all of the catalog entries into one.
| | This shift is extremely short-sighted, too, because eventually, more and more people will want
to complete sets accurately since, as you hinted, today's sets become tomorrow's nostalgia.
|
Today's sets also become tomorrow's new parts on BrickLink. Not everyone
here is looking for historically accurate parts to complete old sets. Some are
just looking for parts to build MOCs.
| | Having a new set with old seats (missing the sprue mark) will be just
as annoying as trying to complete an old set but getting a new seat (with the
sprue mark). That is not a functional difference, but it sure looks different.
|
Again, this happens all of the time when sellers list parts under the wrong variant.
| | The entire point of this shift in culture is to ensure fewer and fewer people
seek those variants, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Over time, if the
variants are marked, the older molds become more difficult to find and so the
market for those parts would shift. If you remove the variants, you undo the
market forces (exactly what TLG would want in this case, since this shifts everything
to their production molds).
|
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. The LEGO Group
adjusts their molds for a variety of reasons (functionality, product quality,
etc). They don't really care how we here at BrickLink treat those variants
since they don't make money from us reselling their products, other than
seller fees now that they own BrickLink.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes: ....
Sellers who list parts under the wrong entry risk complaints and negative feedback
from buyers who care about variants, though, even if the seller states in their
store terms that they do not distinguish between different variants.
See, for example, this post from helge, which describes an unhappy buyer that
accused him of sending the wrong head for a minifigure:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451585
|
As I responded within that post, this happens with every and all parts that have
variations, and especially in color variations. Literally all the time. Are you
going to do away with every single color or part variation?
BTW, you do not do away with the problem you are describing, it could get worse.
If I want a variant and write to the seller the variant I want, they may or
may not see it and send me the wrong one. That will upset me and create an issue.
This happens now with tons of parts, but *at least* with the parts in question
sellers can list the correct parts to avoid the confusion if they want to. Likewise,
as a seller if I have a part I list as a variant and someone buys it not caring
to read it, my inventory with the variant gets erased, so I have to keep making
the note about variance. The burden is ridiculous.
| | I think what Caleb is saying is that the way the catalog currently works, when
a buyer orders a particular variant of a part, there is no way to tell whether
they chose that specific variant because they need that specific variant, or
because BrickLink forces them to choose a variant.
|
In that case the buyer doesn't care, so it doesn't matter. Nothing is
affected. If the person cares about the variant, they will order the variant.
| |
Unless, of course, the buyer contacts the seller directly, but that is rare.
So, the seller doesn't know whether or not they can substitute another variant
just by looking at the order. They have to either contact the buyer directly,
source the correct variant elsewhere, or send the wrong variant and risk ending
up with an unhappy buyer, as described above.
|
What? The seller should take care to send what the individual ordered. This doesn't
make sense. If the seller made the correct selection, the buyer made a mistake.
AGAIN, the issue of confusion of parts extends to any and all parts with any
variations, including color.
| | Not necessarily. As a MOC builder, I don't really care about all the minor
adjustments the LEGO Group has made to their molds over the decades.
|
That's fine! Buy the cheapest parts regardless of variances. Leave the variants
to those of us that care about completing old sets correctly, or replacing very
specific parts, or lining up parts that look the same, etc.
| | Again, this happens all of the time when sellers list parts under the wrong variant.
|
So? It also happens when sellers list the parts correctly. And goes well beyond
the list BL is dealing with now, to basically every part that's ever had
variations or similar colors.
| | I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. The LEGO Group
adjusts their molds for a variety of reasons (functionality, product quality,
etc). They don't really care how we here at BrickLink treat those variants
since they don't make money from us reselling their products, other than
seller fees now that they own BrickLink.
|
What's not to understand? If more variant inventories are progressively done
away with, the market for old parts and old complete sets (which TLG does not
produce or control) is done away with. I mean that's almost verbatim what
was stated in the original thread by Russel, that they would like to see these
distinctions not used moving forward at all. So what's left? The market for
current parts and sets completed with current parts (which TLG continues to produce
and control). If I were cynical, I'd say that's the only reason why TLG
bought this site, to gain market and control. Thankfully I'm not cynical,
hence why I continue to believe that the inventories, indeed the whole culture
of BL to make the distinctions where they matter even to a significant number
of buyers/sellers, are not done away with.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 17:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:ttps://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451585
| |
As I responded within that post, this happens with every and all parts that have
variations, and especially in color variations. Literally all the time. Are you
going to do away with every single color or part variation?
|
No, and neither is BrickLink.
In your post before, you wrote that sellers that do not care about variants can
write so in their terms and list everything under a single (new/common) variant.
But sellers that do that risk making their buyers unhappy (as described by helge)
even more so than sellers that take the time to list everything correctly.
So, it's not a perfect solution (and neither is what BrickLink is proposing).
I do agree with you in that misunderstandings happen even when variants are distinguished
and sellers list them correctly, but neither eliminating all variants, nor distinguishing
between every minor variant (many of which are currently not distinguished here),
will prevent all such misunderstandings.
What we really need is a fundamental restructuring of the catalog (i.e., umbrella
entries), but that's not really what this thread is about.
| | In that case the buyer doesn't care, so it doesn't matter. Nothing is
affected. If the person cares about the variant, they will order the variant.
|
Yes, but they did order the variant ("buyer orders a particular variant"
), not necessarily because they wanted that variant, but because BrickLink currently
forces them to order a specific variant.
So, I wouldn't assume that they care about the variant, but I wouldn't
assume that they don't, either. It's ambiguous.
| | What? The seller should take care to send what the individual ordered.
|
That creates more work (even stress) for sellers because they have to ensure
that all variants are correct regardless of the buyer's preferences (which
are not usually known to the seller anyway, especially when they don't have
a preference).
| | So? It also happens when sellers list the parts correctly. And goes well beyond
the list BL is dealing with now, to basically every part that's ever had
variations or similar colors.
|
How many of those variations or similar colors deserve separate treatment in
the catalog, and how many can be ignored? Should parts be given different catalog
entries based on the set their were included in, the factory they were produced
at, or the year they were produced in? Or minor differences in the LEGO® logo
or the markings on the part?
The line needs to be drawn somewhere.
| | What's not to understand? If more variant inventories are progressively done
away with, the market for old parts and old complete sets (which TLG does not
produce or control) is done away with. I mean that's almost verbatim what
was stated in the original thread by Russel, that they would like to see these
distinctions not used moving forward at all. So what's left? The market for
current parts and sets completed with current parts (which TLG continues to produce
and control). If I were cynical, I'd say that's the only reason why TLG
bought this site, to gain market and control.
|
The LEGO Group does not really control what people do with their products after
they buy them. That's just as true of sets that were retired decades ago
as it is of sets that are still in production.
Why would TLG try to destroy the market for old parts and sets? It's not
like sellers who sell old parts and sets are competing with TLG.
In fact, no one on BrickLink is competing with TLG, since all of our inventory
comes from TLG, regardless of whether it was produced a long time ago or more
recently.
I don't think it is in TLG's best interest to eliminate the aftermarket
for old and retired products. The BrickLink team is simply trying to balance
the interest of those who care about minor variations (catalog experts, archivists,
historians, etc) with those who are less picky about such things (new buyers,
people looking to build MOCs, etc).
Furthermore, I think the second type (casual builders) is more common here (not
necessarily in the forum, but definitely in the marketplace), thus why BrickLink
is proposing to scrap some variants. I understand that many of the first type
(catalog experts) are upset by these changes, but they are not nearly as numerous.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 19:34 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | But sellers that do that risk making their buyers unhappy (as described by helge)
even more so than sellers that take the time to list everything correctly.
|
First, this is literally not true. He didn't do that in his term or splash
page. Second, every transaction is a risk to a seller. You can carefully establish
an item as good condition and someone will say it's in poor condition. And
so on. Third, and this is key, the variants are not the current mold. If you
are searching for a variant and the seller has the current mold and you buy it
you are an idiot. Especially but not only if the seller specifically says they
don't differentiate in the Terms.
| | nor distinguishing
between every minor variant (many of which are currently not distinguished here),
will prevent all such misunderstandings.
|
No one is saying every possible variant, but the ones *already distinguished
listed and used* and like ones moving forward.
| | What we really need is a fundamental restructuring of the catalog (i.e., umbrella
entries), but that's not really what this thread is about.
|
I of course agree with this.
| |
| | In that case the buyer doesn't care, so it doesn't matter. Nothing is
affected. If the person cares about the variant, they will order the variant.
|
Yes, but they did order the variant ("buyer orders a particular variant"
), not necessarily because they wanted that variant, but because BrickLink currently
forces them to order a specific variant.
|
How does this matter? To whom?
| | So, I wouldn't assume that they care about the variant, but I wouldn't
assume that they don't, either. It's ambiguous.
|
If they care for a variant they should not order current mold. This isn't
that complicated. Again, seller lists current mold if they don't care. They
wouldn't list a slope without connectors between studs if all present and
future stock will not look like that. Buyers looking for the old parts would,
well, look for those.
| |
| | What? The seller should take care to send what the individual ordered.
|
That creates more work (even stress) for sellers because they have to ensure
that all variants are correct regardless of the buyer's preferences (which
are not usually known to the seller anyway, especially when they don't have
a preference).
|
Selling is work? Who would've thought. Yes, as a seller you make sure what's
ordered is sent. If they don't have a preference it doesn't matter anyway.
Why is this complicated?
| |
| | So? It also happens when sellers list the parts correctly. And goes well beyond
the list BL is dealing with now, to basically every part that's ever had
variations or similar colors.
|
How many of those variations or similar colors deserve separate treatment in
the catalog, and how many can be ignored? Should parts be given different catalog
entries based on the set their were included in, the factory they were produced
at, or the year they were produced in? Or minor differences in the LEGO® logo
or the markings on the part?
The line needs to be drawn somewhere.
|
THE VARIANTS IN PLACE, BEING DISCUSSED.
| |
Why would TLG try to destroy the market for old parts and sets? It's not
like sellers who sell old parts and sets are competing with TLG.
|
Yes, they are. I'm not positively convinced on this whole destabilizing of
the old parts market bit, but it's reasonable that higher-ups realize if
you buy sets and parts that TLG doesn't produce, they, well don't make
a profit. If you can curtail that, profit comes back. I need 200 black 2x2 inverted
slopes without connections between studs. Can buy on BL or, if I stop caring
about the old mold, I can buy them from TLG.
| |
I don't think it is in TLG's best interest to eliminate the aftermarket
for old and retired products. The BrickLink team is simply trying to balance
the interest of those who care about minor variations (catalog experts, archivists,
historians, etc) with those who are less picky about such things (new buyers,
people looking to build MOCs, etc).
|
Maybe so, or maybe they are testing to see how much of the actual Lego market
they can profit from.
| |
Furthermore, I think the second type (casual builders) is more common here (not
necessarily in the forum, but definitely in the marketplace), thus why BrickLink
is proposing to scrap some variants. I understand that many of the first type
(catalog experts) are upset by these changes, but they are not nearly as numerous.
|
This is not true of regular BL users or what often draws people here in the first
place. I would argue the exact opposite granting that lots of people just make
an account buy some minifigs and they are gone. A catalog of parts from across
the decades that is accurate is a market opportunity onto itself and *keeps people
coming back*. Loyal and serious users care. Casual users will buy a Star Wars
fig they wanted and never stick around.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 20:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | Second, every transaction is a risk to a seller. You can carefully establish
an item as good condition and someone will say it's in poor condition. And
so on.
|
Keeping older variants in the catalog won't prevent that.
| | Third, and this is key, the variants are not the current mold.
|
All molds are variants, current or not. The casual user is not necessarily going
to know which molds are current and which are not, or is even aware that there
is a difference in the first place.
| | If you are searching for a variant and the seller has the current mold and you buy it
you are an idiot. Especially but not only if the seller specifically says they
don't differentiate in the Terms.
|
Perhaps that is true if you are careful when you shop and are somewhat knowledgeable
about different variants, but I wouldn't call someone an idiot just because
they're not very familiar with the BrickLink catalog. It's more complicated
than it needs to be. That doesn't mean we should completely erase the distinction
between older and newer variants, but I can understand why the admins may want
to simplify things a bit.
Some buyers may order the current mold because they need the current mold and
will not be happy if you give them an older mold. So, just because they ordered
the current mold doesn't mean that they don't care about the mold.
Some buyers may order an older variant not because they need the older variant,
but because they are not aware of the difference. So, just because they ordered
an older variant doesn't mean that they need that particular variant.
But just looking at an order received, there's no way to tell why a buyer
chose the variants they ordered.
| | No one is saying every possible variant, but the ones *already distinguished
listed and used* and like ones moving forward.
|
Then what happens when the LEGO Group changes their molds in the future? We can't
add those new molds to the catalog because they're not already in the catalog?
The BrickLink catalog is ever-evolving to better serve the needs of its users,
but that includes deleting old entries as well as creating new ones. If we never
deleted anything, the catalog would become unwieldy and bloated.
| | How does this matter? To whom?
|
To Caleb, at least, and possibly other sellers. We'd like to know if our
buyers really need that variant, or if they'd be okay with a substitute,
so we can provide them with the best possible customer service.
| | If they care for a variant they should not order current mold. This isn't
that complicated.
|
It is complicated to those who are not very familiar with the BrickLink catalog.
| | Selling is work? Who would've thought. Yes, as a seller you make sure what's
ordered is sent. If they don't have a preference it doesn't matter anyway.
Why is this complicated?
|
Because of all these variants. It may seem simple if you're familiar with
the catalog, but it can be confusing if you're not (e.g., "I sent the
buyer what they ordered, why are they complaining that I sent them the wrong
variant?", etc).
For some minor variants with little demand, the extra work of sorting and listing
them correctly is not really worth it for the seller. It is unreasonable to expect
sellers to fulfill orders perfectly (i.e., to "make sure what's ordered
is sent" ) with these minor variants in the catalog.
| | Yes, they are. I'm not positively convinced on this whole destabilizing of
the old parts market bit, but it's reasonable that higher-ups realize if
you buy sets and parts that TLG doesn't produce, they, well don't make
a profit. If you can curtail that, profit comes back. I need 200 black 2x2 inverted
slopes without connections between studs. Can buy on BL or, if I stop caring
about the old mold, I can buy them from TLG.
|
You can also buyer current molds on BrickLink. The LEGO Group doesn't profit
from these sales, either.
| | This is not true of regular BL users or what often draws people here in the first
place. I would argue the exact opposite granting that lots of people just make
an account buy some minifigs and they are gone. A catalog of parts from across
the decades that is accurate is a market opportunity onto itself and *keeps people
coming back*. Loyal and serious users care. Casual users will buy a Star Wars
fig they wanted and never stick around.
|
People come here for many reasons. Some people do come here because of the extensive
catalog of retired items and minor part variations, and some of these people
are understandably upset by the proposed changes. But that's just one type
of user. Others are looking for parts to build MOCs, and many of these people
do come back. So, it's about balancing the needs of different types of users.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 20:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| |
For some minor variants with little demand, the extra work of sorting and listing
them correctly is not really worth it for the seller. It is unreasonable to expect
sellers to fulfill orders perfectly (i.e., to "make sure what's ordered
is sent" ) with these minor variants in the catalog.
|
I said this in another response:
That's the dirty little secret: many of these variants are nearly worthless
and do not remotely justify the effort. I added the comments and will keep what
I have separate. Going forward I will not. If/when what I have sells, that's
it for these variants.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:19 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 15:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, calebfishn writes:
| | I'm looking at this issue and trying to understand it, and decided to throw
in my two cents.
"For sellers, more variants means extra sorting and extra work while pulling
orders, plus the issues that arise from variant misunderstandings."
This statement in Russell's original announcement is unequivocally true.
Require sellers to manage multiple variants places burdens on the sellers.
First of all, in parting out sets. For many sets, there are alternative variants
for various parts, that the seller needs to manually check, by counting whether
a hinge has seven teeth, or nine, for example. Which variant is in that set
seems like the luck of the draw. And then ensure I keep these visually identical
parts separate in storage.
In fulfilling orders. Heaven forbid I got the wrong stud type on the round bricks,
or the wrong X shape axle hole. then I have to scramble to find or source the
correct part so that the buyer is not upset, but the sad truth is that the buyer
most likely does not actually care about the specific variant, but just picked
the first round brick on the list, or the cheaper one. That is probably true
for a majority of buyers. I'm not too lazy to sort variants, if I have to,
but this is a lot of stress.
Something else I consider is that this issue is going to get larger. In the next
five to ten years, the number of mold changes and variants of parts is going
to keep growing. This is as good a time as any to make decisions about whether
Bricklink will keep adding more and more variants, or whether it will put limitations
on which variants are supported. The sets of today, will be "classics"
in a few years, and some builders will demand that sellers provide the theoretically
"authentic" part. How big will we allow the variant list to grow - without
limit?
My final observation is that the discussion here points to the tension created
by two aspects of Bricklink. On the one end is the wish for Bricklink to be the
definitive Wikipedia of all Lego parts and their history. The other side of the
tension is the idea of Bricklink as a great way to buy and sell lego parts. Although
these two ideas are usually complementary, they also create tension that leads
to the challenge of the current discussion.
The Bricklink catalogue is indeed a great asset to sellers, buyers, and all Lego
hobbyists. But is it reasonable to dedicate so much effort to ensure that the
catalogue is comprehensive in documenting information that the Lego company itself
doesn't care to maintain? Particularly when doing so places serious burdens
on sellers? I truly value the information in the catalogue, but honestly, I am
going to feel relieved when I don't feel obligated to sort out and maintain
separate inventories for all these variant parts.
I will keep my current stock separate, and add comments to listings to help buyers
find variants in my store. But it will be as an experiment to see if they actually
sell.
I can't contribute to the discussion here about the functional differences
in variants. However, in keeping with my former career as an archivist, I will
ask Bricklink to do whatever they can to preserve historical data, somewhere.
It would be a shame if it were to be lost.
That's enough of that.
|
+1
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
The more I read these back and forths I realize no matter which side of the coin
you are how poorly thought out the update is. I would have much preferred if
BrickLink instead of putting out a thread like this basically saying, screw you
guys we are going to make changes to this site and do it with the bare minimum
time for discussion in the way we've already decided on. Instead of saying
something like:
"In the near future we would like to streamline the BrickLink catalog for
our users where a few previously known variants will no longer have their own
entries. It is here you come in! We have been going back and forth on finding
a solution for how we can improve the UI of the website and we need your help.
We know some fans depends on these variants as such we would like to find an
alternative solution for logging these variants rather than just throwing them
out. Whatever solution we end up on we hope that you as a seller or buyer whether
you care for variants or not will be having a pleasant user experience on our
site once things are decided. We will not take any actions on the catalog until
we have a working system ready and implemented. We will keep in touch for questions
and to move the process along as to not drag this out too long."
Man, if this was what we got instead, imagine all the discussions and headaches
we would not need to endure. We truly do live in the worst timeline.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 16:45 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 14:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Something else I'm slowly being aware of with this change that I actually
supriseingly thinks is a good thing. Which is that I now know all the stores
on this site which I should block. As the further we go along the people who
agree with this update do not care about me, fans or the hobby in full and would
rather make a quick buck than provide a good service.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 14:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | As the further we go along the people who agree with this update do not care about me, fans or the hobby in full and would rather make a quick buck than provide a good service.
|
Ok maybe that was a bit harsh, sorry what I meant to say is they aren't going
to serve my and a sizeable portion of others interest and will not provide the
service I want or expect from a full time bricklink seller.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Tracyd | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 14:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | Something else I'm slowly being aware of with this change that I actually
supriseingly thinks is a good thing. Which is that I now know all the stores
on this site which I should block. As the further we go along the people who
agree with this update do not care about me, fans or the hobby in full and would
rather make a quick buck than provide a good service.
|
You got it finally. This whole change is about you. I have seen arrogance before,
but you take the cake, In a post before this you said the people have spoken
and are against this change. Take all the people who have spoken up about this
change being bad and it is still not a meaningful percentage of users on the
site. People have their reason for not wanting the merge and have the right
to express them. But the owner of the site has the right to do what they wish.
If you don't like what is going on do what Dan did all these years ago.
Start your own site and do what you want. You will find it is not easy or small
task.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 14:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tracyd writes:
| | In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | Something else I'm slowly being aware of with this change that I actually
supriseingly thinks is a good thing. Which is that I now know all the stores
on this site which I should block. As the further we go along the people who
agree with this update do not care about me, fans or the hobby in full and would
rather make a quick buck than provide a good service.
|
You got it finally. This whole change is about you. I have seen arrogance before,
but you take the cake, In a post before this you said the people have spoken
and are against this change. Take all the people who have spoken up about this
change being bad and it is still not a meaningful percentage of users on the
site. People have their reason for not wanting the merge and have the right
to express them. But the owner of the site has the right to do what they wish.
If you don't like what is going on do what Dan did all these years ago.
Start your own site and do what you want. You will find it is not easy or small
task.
|
By my estimation, it's even fewer people actually speaking out defending
this move (like 6 people total, just posting over and over again). What % of
the BL population is that?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tracyd | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, Tracyd writes:
| | In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | Something else I'm slowly being aware of with this change that I actually
supriseingly thinks is a good thing. Which is that I now know all the stores
on this site which I should block. As the further we go along the people who
agree with this update do not care about me, fans or the hobby in full and would
rather make a quick buck than provide a good service.
|
You got it finally. This whole change is about you. I have seen arrogance before,
but you take the cake, In a post before this you said the people have spoken
and are against this change. Take all the people who have spoken up about this
change being bad and it is still not a meaningful percentage of users on the
site. People have their reason for not wanting the merge and have the right
to express them. But the owner of the site has the right to do what they wish.
If you don't like what is going on do what Dan did all these years ago.
Start your own site and do what you want. You will find it is not easy or small
task.
|
By my estimation, it's even fewer people actually speaking out defending
this move (like 6 people total, just posting over and over again). What % of
the BL population is that?
|
Still not a meaningful percentage. But a lot of people are afraid of being stoplisted
for what they say or think. I don't, for everyone who stoplists me there
are thousands more who will take my business. Some people also love to argue
for the sake of arguing, how many of them have posted? Some people take the
approach of trying to wear down the people with opposing viewpoints, so they
stop responding and the other side will call it a win for their side. Honestly,
I don't give one flip about the merge or if it were to be cancelled. Either
way it won't change how I buy. But when people demand that they have a right
to dictate how the site is run I will remind them that this is not their personal
site, and they don't get to make the decisions. A lot of people have volunteered
their time and effort to this site, but that doesn't make it their site either.
I appreciate all their hard work and commitment and if any stop helping because
of this then we have lost a valuable asset to the site. This site is a business,
and the way to make a business take notice of of your opinions is to vote with
your wallet. If this is so wrong, then take your business elsewhere.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 15:19 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Wow, I'm arrogant, just wow. For what saying hey I can finally see something
positive with this update. I think everyone is allowed an opinion don't
get me wrong but if you very publicly go out of your way to make sure that I
know they don't care about these variants I care about with the update going
through and won't distinguish them I don't have further buisness with
you. As such isn't it fair for me to remove these stores from stores bricklink
will recommend me? Since they aren't providing a service that has value to
me.
Isn't the whole point of a company to gain its profit by providing a service
or a product that has value to its users? I don't really see the outrage
in me pointing out a positive with the upcoming changes for me and people who
would consider themselves like minded(through their own free will of course.
Noone is forcing everyone.)
Its the age old question should buyers comform to sellers or should sellers comform
to buyers? Some might say the market should decide but isn't that redundant
since as someone pointed out a while back a market is a place for buyers and
sellers to make transactions. As such it is up to each seller and each buyer
to decide on which service they prefer to run or support. If its not that then
please endulge me?
Lastly if the people who want this change to not happen truly is a minority and
the people sharing my exact sentiment is an even smaller minority then it wouldn't
really impact anyones stores profitability. Not being listened too is one thing
but being accused of being arrogant for using a marketplace in the way that suits
my own needs in this hobby that is ridiculous.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | As the further we go along the people who
agree with this update do not care about me, fans or the hobby in full and would
rather make a quick buck than provide a good service.
|
This is a real insult to the 24/365 I spend on BrickLink and here IRL
to make so many happy people.
Don't worry I've just done the job for you: you're stop listed.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 15:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | As the further we go along the people who
agree with this update do not care about me, fans or the hobby in full and would
rather make a quick buck than provide a good service.
|
This is a real insult to the 24/365 I spend on BrickLink and here IRL
to make so many happy people.
Don't worry I've just done the job for you: you're stop listed.
|
Cool, good for you.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 16:06 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | As the further we go along the people who
agree with this update do not care about me, fans or the hobby in full and would
rather make a quick buck than provide a good service.
|
This is a real insult to the 24/365 I spend on BrickLink and here IRL
to make so many happy people.
Don't worry I've just done the job for you: you're stop listed.
|
Agree totally. I have been selling LEGO for 25 years, and has yet to see any
of the fabled "quick bucks". The reality is a lot of work for a slow
but steady income. But I am proud of having 7 people on the salary list now (including
part time help).
But why should we at all listen to people that feel the need to ridicule and
insult to prove their point; they only do that because they have run out of real
arguments.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 16:24 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | As the further we go along the people who
agree with this update do not care about me, fans or the hobby in full and would
rather make a quick buck than provide a good service.
|
This is a real insult to the 24/365 I spend on BrickLink and here IRL
to make so many happy people.
Don't worry I've just done the job for you: you're stop listed.
|
Agree totally. I have been selling LEGO for 25 years, and has yet to see any
of the fabled "quick bucks". The reality is a lot of work for a slow
but steady income. But I am proud of having 7 people on the salary list now (including
part time help).
But why should we at all listen to people that feel the need to ridicule and
insult to prove their point; they only do that because they have run out of real
arguments.
|
Insults if I wanted to insult anyone I wouldn't actively tell people from
here on out I'm more careful were I go to vote with my wallet. Neither would
I tell them hey if the bricklink team had just framed this whole thing a bit
differently we wouldn't be here right now. If I wanted to insult anyone I
would reply to them once and never come back to this thread.
Just because not everyone sees eye to eye with you does nit make them some malicious
force. I simply reframed my mindset about this whole thing, I still don't
agree with this update but apparently there is something wrong with expressing
a positive within a bad situation. Us still bickering back and forth will never
really lead to some sort of middleground on this. Part of that boils down to
people not listening. I'm sure if people with concerns were met with a little
bit less of a shut it down mentality. They would start providing more ideas for
alternative solutions but judging by the same 5-7 people still arguing about
this with me I don't see that happening.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 16:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | But why should we at all listen to people that feel the need to ridicule and
insult to prove their point; they only do that because they have run out of real
arguments.
|
You are the one not addressing any arguments and dismissing everyone else as
a pesky minority not worth considering. What I ridiculed, and it's the only
thing I ridiculed, is the claim that you actually know what people who have bought
in your store feel about these current changes--because it's actually
ridiculous!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 04:44 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | terosalmela | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 18:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I am against this change. Or any other action in past or future that diminishes
information of what kind of parts and sets the has been. For me it is important
to get a Lego set as was originally produced. And failing to get correct parts
is annoying.
I'm confident that easy selling of Legos and having correct information available
does not have to be in conflict. We already have those 'Undetermined'
type variants.
I'm not an AFOL but adult 11k€ BrickLink customer, recollecting my 1980's
sets and building our own Lego city with my daughter.
Tero
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tmspecial | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 10:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I vote AGINST it!!!
If Bricklink choses to move forward with this, then they should ALSO merge all
the fig parts:
- 1 combined catalog entry for all the heads, NO matter the face
- 1 combined catalog entry for all the torsos
- 1 combined catalog entry for all the hair pieces
To me they all look the same anyway.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
|
| | 3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 11:10 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 92 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tmspecial writes:
| | I vote AGINST it!!!
If Bricklink choses to move forward with this, then they should ALSO merge all
the fig parts:
- 1 combined catalog entry for all the heads, NO matter the face
- 1 combined catalog entry for all the torsos
- 1 combined catalog entry for all the hair pieces
To me they all look the same anyway.
|
So you want all decorated versions of the same part to be merged, irrespective
of the pattern / print on them?
And all hair pieces to be merged, even if they are totally different parts?
And you want people to listen to you?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | brick350 | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 08:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Someone help me please! I try to change my inventory according to the new rules,
but i'm so confused. If there are only 2 versions of an item, that is clear.
But I don't know what will be the final item number if there are more variants.
For example:
-3048b will be deleted. Where should i upload my 3048b items? 3048, 3048a or
3048c?
-3626bp01 & 3626cp01 will be deleted. Where can i upload these items? To 3626ap01?
Or these will be 3626p(b)01?
I read the Forum for hours, but I don't find the answer. Bricklink "Customer
Service" did not reply.
Thanks in advance!
Best regards, Marianna
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 09:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hello,
I think you are misunderstanding how the variant merge will affect your store
parts. It's okay! I thought the same thing when I first read the email.
First, no lots in your store will be deleted or combined. Every lot you have
now will still be there the day after the merge. You do not need to delete or
upload anything at this point.
What will happen is that the Item Numbers and Item Names on your lots will change.
For example:
You have 5 Blue 3747a, Price .10, lot number 12345678.
You have 2 Blue 3747b, Price .05, lot number 87654321.
After the merge:
You have 5 Blue 3747, Price .10, lot number 12345678.
You have 2 Blue 3747, Price .05, lot number 87654321.
If you want to continue to sell the variants separately, you will need to put
a note in the Comments now so you and your buyers can tell which is which.
If you want to sell them all as one part, after the merge you can choose one
lot to keep, adjust your quantities and prices, and delete the extra lot
Hope this helps!
~Jen
In Catalog, brick350 writes:
| | Someone help me please! I try to change my inventory according to the new rules,
but i'm so confused. If there are only 2 versions of an item, that is clear.
But I don't know what will be the final item number if there are more variants.
For example:
-3048b will be deleted. Where should i upload my 3048b items? 3048, 3048a or
3048c?
-3626bp01 & 3626cp01 will be deleted. Where can i upload these items? To 3626ap01?
Or these will be 3626p(b)01?
I read the Forum for hours, but I don't find the answer. Bricklink "Customer
Service" did not reply.
Thanks in advance!
Best regards, Marianna
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | brick350 | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 09:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thank you, this is already clear, but I would like to merge my physical inventory
before the changes. So (if I understand correctly) I need to move my 3048b items
to 3048? And 3048a & 3048c are stay separate in the catalogue.
And what about the 3626 heads?
In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Hello,
I think you are misunderstanding how the variant merge will affect your store
parts. It's okay! I thought the same thing when I first read the email.
First, no lots in your store will be deleted or combined. Every lot you have
now will still be there the day after the merge. You do not need to delete or
upload anything at this point.
What will happen is that the Item Numbers and Item Names on your lots will change.
For example:
You have 5 Blue 3747a, Price .10, lot number 12345678.
You have 2 Blue 3747b, Price .05, lot number 87654321.
After the merge:
You have 5 Blue 3747, Price .10, lot number 12345678.
You have 2 Blue 3747, Price .05, lot number 87654321.
If you want to continue to sell the variants separately, you will need to put
a note in the Comments now so you and your buyers can tell which is which.
If you want to sell them all as one part, after the merge you can choose one
lot to keep, adjust your quantities and prices, and delete the extra lot
Hope this helps!
~Jen
In Catalog, brick350 writes:
| | Someone help me please! I try to change my inventory according to the new rules,
but i'm so confused. If there are only 2 versions of an item, that is clear.
But I don't know what will be the final item number if there are more variants.
For example:
-3048b will be deleted. Where should i upload my 3048b items? 3048, 3048a or
3048c?
-3626bp01 & 3626cp01 will be deleted. Where can i upload these items? To 3626ap01?
Or these will be 3626p(b)01?
I read the Forum for hours, but I don't find the answer. Bricklink "Customer
Service" did not reply.
Thanks in advance!
Best regards, Marianna
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 09:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brick350 writes:
| | Thank you, this is already clear, but I would like to merge my physical inventory
before the changes. So (if I understand correctly) I need to move my 3048b items
to 3048? And 3048a & 3048c are stay separate in the catalogue.
And what about the 3626 heads?
|
3048 is not being merged.
You cannot prepare for the 3626 merge. Part 3626 will not exist until after 3626b,
3626c, and 28621 are merged.
Thanks,
~Jen
| |
In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Hello,
I think you are misunderstanding how the variant merge will affect your store
parts. It's okay! I thought the same thing when I first read the email.
First, no lots in your store will be deleted or combined. Every lot you have
now will still be there the day after the merge. You do not need to delete or
upload anything at this point.
What will happen is that the Item Numbers and Item Names on your lots will change.
For example:
You have 5 Blue 3747a, Price .10, lot number 12345678.
You have 2 Blue 3747b, Price .05, lot number 87654321.
After the merge:
You have 5 Blue 3747, Price .10, lot number 12345678.
You have 2 Blue 3747, Price .05, lot number 87654321.
If you want to continue to sell the variants separately, you will need to put
a note in the Comments now so you and your buyers can tell which is which.
If you want to sell them all as one part, after the merge you can choose one
lot to keep, adjust your quantities and prices, and delete the extra lot
Hope this helps!
~Jen
In Catalog, brick350 writes:
| | Someone help me please! I try to change my inventory according to the new rules,
but i'm so confused. If there are only 2 versions of an item, that is clear.
But I don't know what will be the final item number if there are more variants.
For example:
-3048b will be deleted. Where should i upload my 3048b items? 3048, 3048a or
3048c?
-3626bp01 & 3626cp01 will be deleted. Where can i upload these items? To 3626ap01?
Or these will be 3626p(b)01?
I read the Forum for hours, but I don't find the answer. Bricklink "Customer
Service" did not reply.
Thanks in advance!
Best regards, Marianna
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | brick350 | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 02:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, brick350 writes:
| | Thank you, this is already clear, but I would like to merge my physical inventory
before the changes. So (if I understand correctly) I need to move my 3048b items
to 3048? And 3048a & 3048c are stay separate in the catalogue.
And what about the 3626 heads?
|
3048 is not being merged.
You cannot prepare for the 3626 merge. Part 3626 will not exist until after 3626b,
3626c, and 28621 are merged.
Thanks,
~Jen
| |
In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Hello,
I think you are misunderstanding how the variant merge will affect your store
parts. It's okay! I thought the same thing when I first read the email.
First, no lots in your store will be deleted or combined. Every lot you have
now will still be there the day after the merge. You do not need to delete or
upload anything at this point.
What will happen is that the Item Numbers and Item Names on your lots will change.
For example:
You have 5 Blue 3747a, Price .10, lot number 12345678.
You have 2 Blue 3747b, Price .05, lot number 87654321.
After the merge:
You have 5 Blue 3747, Price .10, lot number 12345678.
You have 2 Blue 3747, Price .05, lot number 87654321.
If you want to continue to sell the variants separately, you will need to put
a note in the Comments now so you and your buyers can tell which is which.
If you want to sell them all as one part, after the merge you can choose one
lot to keep, adjust your quantities and prices, and delete the extra lot
Hope this helps!
~Jen
In Catalog, brick350 writes:
| | Someone help me please! I try to change my inventory according to the new rules,
but i'm so confused. If there are only 2 versions of an item, that is clear.
But I don't know what will be the final item number if there are more variants.
For example:
-3048b will be deleted. Where should i upload my 3048b items? 3048, 3048a or
3048c?
-3626bp01 & 3626cp01 will be deleted. Where can i upload these items? To 3626ap01?
Or these will be 3626p(b)01?
I read the Forum for hours, but I don't find the answer. Bricklink "Customer
Service" did not reply.
Thanks in advance!
Best regards, Marianna
|
|
|
|
Why is it on the list?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 03:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brick350 writes:
This one will be merged:
[p=3048b]
Look at the bottom to select the alternative
* | | 3048a Slope 45 2 x 1 Triple without Inside Bar or Bottom Stud Holder
Parts: Slope |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 09:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brick350 writes:
My apologies! When I think of this slope, I only think of the variants for the
base.
Now I have to admit that I have no idea which of the base types they are going
to merge the smooth one with.
Does anyone know if this has been answered somewhere?
Thanks,
~Jen
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 09:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, brick350 writes:
My apologies! When I think of this slope, I only think of the variants for the
base.
Now I have to admit that I have no idea which of the base types they are going
to merge the smooth one with.
|
Perhaps this one should just be marked for deletion as it could probably be a
mix of 3048c and 15571.
| | Does anyone know if this has been answered somewhere?
Thanks,
~Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 11:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Now I have to admit that I have no idea which of the base types they are going
to merge the smooth one with.
Does anyone know if this has been answered somewhere?
|
Russell told us 3048b will be merged into 3048c because the time overlaps.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 10:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brick350 writes:
| | Thank you, this is already clear, but I would like to merge my physical inventory
before the changes.
|
I strongly advice against.
You should (if you so wish) merge your lots only after the merge.
For many of them, the final Item Numbers will only be revealed after the merge
anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Netherlands, Groningen
Portugal
Canada, British Columbia
United Kingdom, England
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
Australia, Queensland
Germany, Bayern
Sweden, Norrbotten
Austria, Vorarlberg
)
)
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
Italy, Lombardia
Belgium, Brussels
Luxembourg
Denmark
Switzerland, Bern
)
)
Finland, Uusimaa
)
)
Hungary, Budapest
Estonia, Harjumaa
United Kingdom, Scotland
Slovakia, Trnavský Kraj
Lithuania, Vilnius
Poland, w. Mazowieckie
Ireland, Dublin
Czech Republic, Středočeský Kraj
United Kingdom, Wales
)
)
Norway
.png){kind=link}